MP11-03 MODULAR TRAINING FOR RARP: WHERE TO BEGIN?

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologySurgical Technology & Simulation: Training & Skills Assessment I1 Apr 2016MP11-03 MODULAR TRAINING FOR RARP: WHERE TO BEGIN? Catherine Lovegrove, Giacomo Novara, Khurshid Guru, Alex Mottrie, Ben Challacombe, Johar Raza, Henk Van der Poel, James Peabody, Rick Popert, Prokar Dasgupta, and Kamran Ahmed Catherine LovegroveCatherine Lovegrove More articles by this author , Giacomo NovaraGiacomo Novara More articles by this author , Khurshid GuruKhurshid Guru More articles by this author , Alex MottrieAlex Mottrie More articles by this author , Ben ChallacombeBen Challacombe More articles by this author , Johar RazaJohar Raza More articles by this author , Henk Van der PoelHenk Van der Poel More articles by this author , James PeabodyJames Peabody More articles by this author , Rick PopertRick Popert More articles by this author , Prokar DasguptaProkar Dasgupta More articles by this author , and Kamran AhmedKamran Ahmed More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.2374AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Effective training is paramount in ensuring patient safety. The Halstedian approach to education has become redundant, replaced by evidence-based curricula models. Modular training entails advancing through surgical steps of increasing difficulty, moving to the next step once competence in the previous has been attained. This study aimed to compare theory-based training recommendations with how surgeons are trained in reality and thus construct a modular training pathway for use in RARP. METHODS This multi-institutional, prospective, observational, longitudinal study was conducted using 15 urology trainees from across Europe and Australia. They utilised a validated training tool and data regarding surgeons' stage of training and progress was collected for analysis. With reference to training recommended in the literature, a modular pathway for RARP training was constructed. RESULTS 15 surgeons were assessed by their mentors in 425 RARP cases over eight months (range 7-79). There were substantial differences in the order of RARP stages according to the chronology of the procedure, difficulty level and the order in which surgeons were trained in reality. Difficulty for stages of RARP level as recommended by ERUS ranged from I-IV. Median case number for first attempting a stage of RARP ranged from 1-5 (minimum case number 1, maximum case number 59). “Stage 4: Initiation of the console” was the most frequently attempted stage (372 attempts by 15 trainees). “Stage 17: Lymph node dissection” was least frequently attempted (82 attempts by 11 trainees). A new modular training route has been designed (Figure 1). This incorporates the stages of RARP with the following order of priority: difficulty level > median case number of first attempt > most frequently undertaken in surgical training. CONCLUSIONS An evidence-based modular training pathway has been developed. This should be used to aid surgeons, ensuring that they operate within their capabilities as they progress through their training. © 2016FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 195Issue 4SApril 2016Page: e111-e112 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016MetricsAuthor Information Catherine Lovegrove More articles by this author Giacomo Novara More articles by this author Khurshid Guru More articles by this author Alex Mottrie More articles by this author Ben Challacombe More articles by this author Johar Raza More articles by this author Henk Van der Poel More articles by this author James Peabody More articles by this author Rick Popert More articles by this author Prokar Dasgupta More articles by this author Kamran Ahmed More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...