Search

Objective: To analyze all published prospective, randomized, and blinded clinical studies on the proficiency-based progression (PBP) training using objective performance metrics. Background: The benefit of PBP methodology to learning clinical skills in comparison to conventional training is not settled. Methods: Search of PubMed, Cochrane library's Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Scopus databases, from inception to 1st March 2020. Two independent reviewers extracted the data. The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. Results were pooled using biased corrected standardized mean difference and ratio-of-means. Summary effects were evaluated using a series of fixed and random effects models. The primary outcome was the number of procedural errors performed comparing PBP and non-PBP-based training pathways. Secondary outcomes were the number of procedural steps completed and the time to complete the task/procedure. Results: From the initial pool of 468 studies, 12 randomized clinical studies with a total of 239 participants were included in the analysis. In comparison to the non-PBP training, ratio-of-means results showed that PBP training reduced the number of performance errors by 60% (P < 0.001) and procedural time by 15% (P = 0.003) and increased the number of steps performed by 47% (P < 0.001). Conclusions and relevance: Our systematic review and meta-analysis confirms that PBP training in comparison to conventional or quality assured training improved trainees' performances, by decreasing procedural errors and procedural time, while increasing the number of correct steps taken when compared to standard simulation-based training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To develop and seek consensus from procedure experts on the metrics that best characterise a reference robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and determine if the metrics distinguished between the objectively assessed RARP performance of experienced and novice urologists, as identifying objective performance metrics for surgical training in robotic surgery is imperative for patient safety. Materials and methods: In Study 1, the metrics, i.e. 12 phases of the procedure, 81 steps, 245 errors and 110 critical errors for a reference RARP were developed and then presented to an international Delphi panel of 19 experienced urologists. In Study 2, 12 very experienced surgeons (VES) who had performed >500 RARPs and 12 novice urology surgeons performed a RARP, which was video recorded and assessed by two experienced urologists blinded as to subject and group. Percentage agreement between experienced urologists for the Delphi meeting and Mann–Whitney U‐ and Kruskal–Wallis tests were used for construct validation of the newly identified RARP metrics. Results: At the Delphi panel, consensus was reached on the appropriateness of the metrics for a reference RARP. In Study 2, the results showed that the VES performed ~4% more procedure steps and made 72% fewer procedure errors than the novices (P = 0.027). Phases VIIa and VIIb (i.e. neurovascular bundle dissection) best discriminated between the VES and novices. Limitations: VES whose performance was in the bottom half of their group demonstrated considerable error variability and made five‐times as many errors as the other half of the group (P = 0.006). Conclusions: The international Delphi panel reached high‐level consensus on the RARP metrics that reliably distinguished between the objectively scored procedure performance of VES and novices. Reliable and valid performance metrics of RARP are imperative for effective and quality assured surgical training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the study was to select surgeons for a higher surgical training in general surgery programme at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI) using an objective, transparent and fair assessment programme. Thirty-two individuals applied for higher surgical training in general surgery in Ireland in 2006. Sixteen applicants were short-listed for interview and further assessment. All applicants were required to report on their education performance at undergraduate level and their postgraduate professional development. Applicants were scored on their training record during basic surgical training, structures references, clinical experience, approved technical skills courses, validated logbook and consolidation sheet. Assessments of their research and academic surgery included, the award of a higher degree by thesis, and other surgically relevant degree’s or diplomas that had been obtained through part-time studies and were awarded by educational establishments recognized by RCSI or the Irish Medical Council. Short-listed applicants completed validated objective assessment simulations of surgical skills, an interview and assessment of their suitability for a career in surgery. The nine individuals who were selected for higher surgical training in general surgery consistently scored higher than those candidates who were not, in post-graduate development ( P < 0.001), surgical skills ( P < 0.002), interview scores ( P < 0.007) and suitability for a career in surgery ( P < 0.002). All performance assessment elements except undergraduate education showed high internal reliability α = 0.89 and good statistical power (range 0.95–0.99). The statistical power of undergraduate education was 0.7. The objective assessment programme introduced by RCSI for selection of candidates for the programme in higher surgical training in general surgery reliably and consistently distinguished between candidates. Candidates selected for further training consistently outperformed those who were not in good concordance between measures. This common selection process for higher surgical training is now being rolled out for selection into higher surgical training across all surgical specialties in Ireland. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To improve patient outcomes in robotic surgery, robotic training and education need to be modernised and augmented. The skills and performance levels of trainees need to be objectively assessed before they operate on real patients. The main goal of the first Orsi Consensus Meeting on European Robotic Training (OCERT) was to establish the opinions of experts from different scientific societies on standardised robotic training pathways and training methodology. After a 2-d consensus conference, 36 experts identified 23 key statements allotted to three themes: training standardisation pathways, validation metrics, and implementation prerequisites and certification. After two rounds of Delphi voting, consensus was obtained for 22 of 23 questions among these three categories. Participants agreed that societies should drive and support the implementation of benchmarked training using validated proficiency-based pathways. All courses should deliver an internationally agreed curriculum with performance standards, be accredited by universities/professional societies, and, trainees should receive a certificate approved by professional societies and/or universities after successful completion of the robotic training courses. This OCERT meeting established a basis for bringing surgical robotic training out of the operating room by seeking input and consensus across surgical specialties for an objective, validated, and standardised training programme with transparent, metric-based training outcomes. The Orsi Consensus Meeting on European Robotic Training (OCERT) is an international, multidisciplinary, Delphi-panel study of scientific societies and experts focused on training in robotic surgery. The panel achieved consensus that standardised international training pathways should be the basis for a structured, validated, replicable, and certified approach to implementation of robotic technology. The Orsi Consensus Meeting on European Robotic Training (OCERT) is an international, multidisciplinary, Delphi-panel study of scientific societies and experts focused on training in robotic surgery. It established a basis for bringing surgical robotic training out of the operating room by seeking input and consensus across surgical specialties for an objective, validated, and standardised training programme with transparent, metric-based training outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]