Ahmed Kamran, Khan Reenam, Mottrie Alexandre, Lovegrove Catherine, Abaza Ronny, Ahlawat Rajesh, Ahlering Thomas, Ahlgren Goran, Artibani Walter, Barret Eric, Cathelineau Xavier, Challacombe Ben, Coloby Patrick, Khan Muhammad S, Hubert Jacques, Michel Maurice Stephan, Montorsi Francesco, Murphy Declan, Palou Joan, Patel Vipul, Piechaud Pierre-Thierry, Van Poppel Hendrik, Rischmann Pascal, Sanchez-Salas Rafael, Siemer Stefan, Stoeckle Michael, Stolzenburg Jens-Uwe, Terrier Jean-Etienne, Thüroff Joachim W, Vaessen Christophe, Van Der Poel Henk G, Van Cleynenbreugel Ben, Volpe Alessandro, Wagner Christian, Wiklund Peter, Wilson Timothy, Wirth Manfred, Witt Jörn, Dasgupta Prokar
Department of Urology, Medical Research Council (MRC) Centre for Transplantation, King's College London, Guy's Hospital, London, UK.
Department of Urology, OLV Vattikuti Robotic Surgery Institute, OLV Hospital, Aalst, Belgium.
BJU Int. 2015 Jul;116(1):93-101. doi: 10.1111/bju.12974. Epub 2015 Mar 23.
To explore the views of experts about the development and validation of a robotic surgery training curriculum, and how this should be implemented.
An international expert panel was invited to a structured session for discussion. The study was of a mixed design, including qualitative and quantitative components based on focus group interviews during the European Association of Urology (EAU) Robotic Urology Section (ERUS) (2012), EAU (2013) and ERUS (2013) meetings. After introduction to the aims, principles and current status of the curriculum development, group responses were elicited. After content analysis of recorded interviews generated themes were discussed at the second meeting, where consensus was achieved on each theme. This discussion also underwent content analysis, and was used to draft a curriculum proposal. At the third meeting, a quantitative questionnaire about this curriculum was disseminated to attendees to assess the level of agreement with the key points.
In all, 150 min (19 pages) of the focus group discussion was transcribed (21 316 words). Themes were agreed by two raters (median agreement κ 0.89) and they included: need for a training curriculum (inter-rater agreement κ 0.85); identification of learning needs (κ 0.83); development of the curriculum contents (κ 0.81); an overview of available curricula (κ 0.79); settings for robotic surgery training ((κ 0.89); assessment and training of trainers (κ 0.92); requirements for certification and patient safety (κ 0.83); and need for a universally standardised curriculum (κ 0.78). A training curriculum was proposed based on the above discussions.
This group proposes a multi-step curriculum for robotic training. Studies are in process to validate the effectiveness of the curriculum and to assess transfer of skills to the operating room.
探讨专家对机器人手术培训课程开发与验证的看法,以及该课程应如何实施。
邀请一个国际专家小组参加一次结构化会议进行讨论。该研究采用混合设计,包括基于在欧洲泌尿外科学会(EAU)机器人泌尿外科分会(ERUS)(2012年)、EAU(2013年)和ERUS(2013年)会议期间进行的焦点小组访谈的定性和定量部分。在介绍课程开发的目标、原则和现状后,引发了小组讨论。在对记录的访谈进行内容分析后,在第二次会议上讨论了生成的主题,并就每个主题达成了共识。该讨论也进行了内容分析,并用于起草课程提案。在第三次会议上,向与会者发放了一份关于该课程的定量问卷,以评估对要点的认同程度。
焦点小组讨论共转录了150分钟(19页)(21316字)。两位评分者对主题达成了一致意见(中位数一致性κ为0.89),这些主题包括:培训课程的必要性(评分者间一致性κ为0.85);学习需求的确定(κ为0.83);课程内容的开发(κ为0.81);现有课程概述(κ为0.79);机器人手术培训的环境(κ为0.89);培训师的评估与培训(κ为0.92);认证和患者安全要求(κ为0.83);以及通用标准化课程的必要性(κ为0.78)。基于上述讨论提出了一个培训课程。
该小组提出了一个用于机器人培训多步骤课程。目前正在进行研究以验证该课程的有效性,并评估技能向手术室的转移情况。