Development of a standardised training curriculum for robotic surgery: A consensus statement from an international multidisciplinary group of experts

Kamran Ahmed; Reenam Khan; Alexandre Mottrie; Catherine Lovegrove; Ronny Abaza; Rajesh Ahlawat; Thomas Ahlering; Goran Ahlgren; Walter Artibani; Eric Barret; Xavier Cathelineau; Ben Challacombe; Patrick Coloby; Muhammad S. Khan; Jacques Hubert; Maurice Stephan Michel; Francesco Montorsi; Declan Murphy; Joan Palou; Vipul Patel; Pierre Thierry Piechaud; Hendrik Van Poppel; Pascal Rischmann; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; Stefan Siemer; Michael Stoeckle; Jens Uwe Stolzenburg; Jean Etienne Terrier; Joachim W. Thüroff; Christophe Vaessen; Henk G. Van Der Poel; Ben Van Cleynenbreugel; Alessandro Volpe; Christian Wagner; Peter Wiklund; Timothy Wilson; Manfred Wirth; Jörn Witt; Prokar Dasgupta

doi:10.1111/bju.12974

Development of a standardised training curriculum for robotic surgery: A consensus statement from an international multidisciplinary group of experts

Kamran Ahmed, Reenam Khan, Alexandre Mottrie, Catherine Lovegrove, Ronny Abaza, Rajesh Ahlawat, Thomas Ahlering, Goran Ahlgren, Walter Artibani, Eric Barret, Xavier Cathelineau, Ben Challacombe, Patrick Coloby, Muhammad S. Khan, Jacques Hubert, Maurice Stephan Michel, Francesco Montorsi, Declan Murphy, Joan Palou, Vipul PatelPierre Thierry Piechaud, Hendrik Van Poppel, Pascal Rischmann, Rafael Sanchez-Salas, Stefan Siemer, Michael Stoeckle, Jens Uwe Stolzenburg, Jean Etienne Terrier, Joachim W. Thüroff, Christophe Vaessen, Henk G. Van Der Poel, Ben Van Cleynenbreugel, Alessandro Volpe, Christian Wagner, Peter Wiklund, Timothy Wilson, Manfred Wirth, Jörn Witt, Prokar Dasgupta

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer-review

91 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

© 2015 The Authors BJU International © 2015 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Objectives To explore the views of experts about the development and validation of a robotic surgery training curriculum, and how this should be implemented. Materials and methods 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. Results 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. Conclusion 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.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	93-101
Journal	BJU International
Volume	116
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12974
Publication status	Published - 1 Jul 2015

Keywords

curriculum
education
learning-needs
robotics
training
validation

Access to Document

10.1111/bju.12974

Cite this

Ahmed, K., Khan, R., Mottrie, A., Lovegrove, C., Abaza, R., Ahlawat, R., Ahlering, T., Ahlgren, G., Artibani, W., Barret, E., Cathelineau, X., Challacombe, B., Coloby, P., Khan, M. S., Hubert, J., Michel, M. S., Montorsi, F., Murphy, D., Palou, J., ... Dasgupta, P. (2015). Development of a standardised training curriculum for robotic surgery: A consensus statement from an international multidisciplinary group of experts. BJU International, 116(1), 93-101. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12974

@article{236c8f0717404b248c798a0da6605f21,

title = "Development of a standardised training curriculum for robotic surgery: A consensus statement from an international multidisciplinary group of experts",

abstract = "{\textcopyright} 2015 The Authors BJU International {\textcopyright} 2015 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Objectives To explore the views of experts about the development and validation of a robotic surgery training curriculum, and how this should be implemented. Materials and methods 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. Results 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. Conclusion 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.",

keywords = "curriculum, education, learning-needs, robotics, training, validation",

author = "Kamran Ahmed and Reenam Khan and Alexandre Mottrie and Catherine Lovegrove and Ronny Abaza and Rajesh Ahlawat and Thomas Ahlering and Goran Ahlgren and Walter Artibani and Eric Barret and Xavier Cathelineau and Ben Challacombe and Patrick Coloby and Khan, {Muhammad S.} and Jacques Hubert and Michel, {Maurice Stephan} and Francesco Montorsi and Declan Murphy and Joan Palou and Vipul Patel and Piechaud, {Pierre Thierry} and {Van Poppel}, Hendrik and Pascal Rischmann and Rafael Sanchez-Salas and Stefan Siemer and Michael Stoeckle and Stolzenburg, {Jens Uwe} and Terrier, {Jean Etienne} and Th{\"u}roff, {Joachim W.} and Christophe Vaessen and {Van Der Poel}, {Henk G.} and {Van Cleynenbreugel}, Ben and Alessandro Volpe and Christian Wagner and Peter Wiklund and Timothy Wilson and Manfred Wirth and J{\"o}rn Witt and Prokar Dasgupta",

year = "2015",

month = jul,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1111/bju.12974",

language = "English",

volume = "116",

pages = "93--101",

number = "1",

}

Ahmed, K, Khan, R, Mottrie, A, Lovegrove, C, Abaza, R, Ahlawat, R, Ahlering, T, Ahlgren, G, Artibani, W, Barret, E, Cathelineau, X, Challacombe, B, Coloby, P, Khan, MS, Hubert, J, Michel, MS, Montorsi, F, Murphy, D, Palou, J, Patel, V, Piechaud, PT, Van Poppel, H, Rischmann, P, Sanchez-Salas, R, Siemer, S, Stoeckle, M, Stolzenburg, JU, Terrier, JE, Thüroff, JW, Vaessen, C, Van Der Poel, HG, Van Cleynenbreugel, B, Volpe, A, Wagner, C, Wiklund, P, Wilson, T, Wirth, M, Witt, J & Dasgupta, P 2015, 'Development of a standardised training curriculum for robotic surgery: A consensus statement from an international multidisciplinary group of experts', BJU International, vol. 116, no. 1, pp. 93-101. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12974

TY - JOUR

T1 - Development of a standardised training curriculum for robotic surgery: A consensus statement from an international multidisciplinary group of experts

AU - Ahmed, Kamran

AU - Khan, Reenam

AU - Mottrie, Alexandre

AU - Lovegrove, Catherine

AU - Abaza, Ronny

AU - Ahlawat, Rajesh

AU - Ahlering, Thomas

AU - Ahlgren, Goran

AU - Artibani, Walter

AU - Barret, Eric

AU - Cathelineau, Xavier

AU - Challacombe, Ben

AU - Coloby, Patrick

AU - Khan, Muhammad S.

AU - Hubert, Jacques

AU - Michel, Maurice Stephan

AU - Montorsi, Francesco

AU - Murphy, Declan

AU - Palou, Joan

AU - Patel, Vipul

AU - Piechaud, Pierre Thierry

AU - Van Poppel, Hendrik

AU - Rischmann, Pascal

AU - Sanchez-Salas, Rafael

AU - Siemer, Stefan

AU - Stoeckle, Michael

AU - Stolzenburg, Jens Uwe

AU - Terrier, Jean Etienne

AU - Thüroff, Joachim W.

AU - Vaessen, Christophe

AU - Van Der Poel, Henk G.

AU - Van Cleynenbreugel, Ben

AU - Volpe, Alessandro

AU - Wagner, Christian

AU - Wiklund, Peter

AU - Wilson, Timothy

AU - Wirth, Manfred

AU - Witt, Jörn

AU - Dasgupta, Prokar

PY - 2015/7/1

Y1 - 2015/7/1

N2 - © 2015 The Authors BJU International © 2015 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Objectives To explore the views of experts about the development and validation of a robotic surgery training curriculum, and how this should be implemented. Materials and methods 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. Results 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. Conclusion 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.

AB - © 2015 The Authors BJU International © 2015 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Objectives To explore the views of experts about the development and validation of a robotic surgery training curriculum, and how this should be implemented. Materials and methods 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. Results 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. Conclusion 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.

KW - curriculum

KW - education

KW - learning-needs

KW - robotics

KW - training

KW - validation

U2 - 10.1111/bju.12974

DO - 10.1111/bju.12974

M3 - Article

VL - 116

SP - 93

EP - 101

IS - 1

ER -

Development of a standardised training curriculum for robotic surgery: A consensus statement from an international multidisciplinary group of experts

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this