A Multi-Institutional Needs Assessment in the Development of a Robotic Surgery Curriculum: Perceptions From Resident and Faculty Surgeons

Abstract

The growing adoption of robotic-assisted surgery mandates residents must acquire robotic skills. No standardized curriculum for robotic surgery exists. Therefore, programs have developed their own curricula, which are often unstructured and based on resource availability. With this strategy programs may not adhere to scholarly approaches in curriculum development. We aimed to obtain a multi-institutional needs assessment to address training needs and identify integral components of a formalized robotic surgery curriculum. A 10-question survey was distributed to general surgery residents. A separate 7-question survey was sent to robotic faculty surgeons at 3 institutions. Survey questions queried demographics, opinions regarding robotic training, proficiency definitions, and identification of procedures and instructional strategies for a curriculum. Mann- Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test were performed to compare responses amongst residents and faculty. Spearman's correlation was used to identify relationships between experience or post-graduate year (PGY) with response selection. Both residents and faculty believed robotic training should start in the PGY1 (55.1% vs 52%; p = 0.58). Faculty recognized robotic training to be more important compared to residents (84% vs 58.1%; p < 0.05). Both groups considered a minimum of 21 to 40 robotic cases to be sufficient exposure during training (p = 0.30). Cholecystectomy (82.4% vs 72%; p = 0.261), ventral hernia repair (89.2% vs 88%; p = 1.0), inguinal hernia repair (91.9% vs 92%; p = 1.0), and right colectomy (83.8% vs 80%; p = 0.7) were considered to be the most appropriate robotic procedures during training. Both groups concurred that bedside (91.9% vs 100%; p = 0.33) and console skills training (97.3% vs 100%; p = 1.0), small group simulation (94.6% vs 72% p = 0.005), and independent practice (87.8% vs 92% p = 0.73), were instructional strategies vital to a curriculum. Faculty considered online didactic modules (96% vs 59.5%; p < 0.05) to be more important, whereas residents favored small group experiences for fundamental skills (94.6% vs. 72%; p < 0.05) and procedure-based simulation (96% vs 64%; p < 0.05). Our targeted needs assessment identified requisite components of a robotics curriculum, which are feasible and accepted by both residents and faculty. Medical educators can use this as a resource to develop a formal robotics training curriculum.