Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying curriculum content for operating room nurses involved in robotic-assisted surgery: a Delphi study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Currently, no generally accepted curriculum for operating room nurses (OR nurses) working with robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) exists. OR nurses working with RAS require different competencies than regular OR nurses, e.g. knowledge of the robotic system and equipment and specific emergency undocking procedures. The objective of this study was to identify learning goals for a curriculum for OR nurses working with RAS and to investigate which learning methods should be used.

Methods

A three-round Delphi approach, with an additional survey, was used in this study. Four OR nurses from every department in gynecology, urology, and surgical gastroenterology doing RAS in Denmark were invited to participate.

Results

The response rates were 93%, 81%, and 79%, respectively, in the three rounds of the Delphi survey and 68% in the additional survey. After the processing of data, a list of 57 learning goals, sorted under 11 domains, was produced. 41 learning goals were rated Relevant, Very relevant, or Essential spread over 10 of the 11 domains. The top 3 learning goals rated as Essential: Identify the most common injuries related to patient positioning during robotic-assisted surgery and know how to avoid them, Connect, calibrate and handle the scope, Perform an emergency undocking procedure. The panel rated Supervised training during surgery on patients as the most relevant learning method, followed by Dry lab and Team training.

Conclusions

The learning goals identified in this study, can be used as the basis for a curriculum for OR nurses working with RAS. During the processing, it became clear that there is a need to further investigate issues such as communication challenges, awareness of emergency procedures, and differences in the skills required depending on the role of the RAS nurse.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets used for this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Intuitive (2022) Intuitive announces preliminary fourth quarter and full year 2021 results. https://isrg.intuitive.com/news-releases/news-release-details/intuitive-announces-preliminary-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-1. Accessed 22 Jan 2022

  2. Francis P (2006) The evolution of robotics in surgery and implementing a perioperative robotics nurse specialist role. AORN J. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-2092(06)60191-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kang MJ, De Gagne JC, Kang HS (2016) Perioperative nurses’ work experience with robotic surgery: a focus group study. Comput Inf Nurs 34:152–158. https://doi.org/10.1097/cin.0000000000000224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Abdel Raheem A, Song HJ, Chang KD, Choi YD, Rha KH (2017) Robotic nurse duties in the urology operative room: 11 years of experience. Asian J Urol 4:116–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2016.09.012

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Uslu Y, Altınbaş Y, Özercan T, van Giersbergen MY (2019) The process of nurse adaptation to robotic surgery: a qualitative study. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Carlos G, Saulan M (2018) Robotic emergencies: are you prepared for a disaster? AORN J 108:493–501. https://doi.org/10.1002/aorn.12393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Francis P, Winfield HN (2006) Medical robotics: the impact on perioperative nursing practice. Urol Nurs 26:99–104, 107–108

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tiferes J, Hussein AA, Bisantz A, Kozlowski JD, Sharif MA, Winder NM, Ahmad N, Allers J, Cavuoto L, Guru KA (2016) The loud surgeon behind the console: understanding team activities during robot-assisted surgery. J Surg Educ 73:504–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.12.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tiferes J, Hussein AA, Bisantz A, Higginbotham DJ, Sharif M, Kozlowski J, Ahmad B, O’Hara R, Wawrzyniak N, Guru K (2019) Are gestures worth a thousand words? Verbal and nonverbal communication during robot-assisted surgery. Appl Ergon 78:251–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.02.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Almeras C (2019) Operating room communication in robotic surgery: place, modalities and evolution of a safe system of interaction. J Visc Surg 156:397–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2019.02.004

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fisher RA, Dasgupta P, Mottrie A, Volpe A, Khan MS, Challacombe B, Ahmed K (2015) An over-view of robot assisted surgery curricula and the status of their validation. Int J Surg 13:115–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.11.033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 Int 116:93–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12974

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. ERUS robotic curriculum. European Association of Urology. https://uroweb.org/section/erus/education/. Accessed 22 Jan 2022

  14. Fundamentals of robotic surgery. https://frsurgery.org/. Accessed 22 Jan 2022

  15. Collins JW, Dell’Oglio P, Hung AJ, Brook NR (2018) The importance of technical and non-technical skills in robotic surgery training [figure presented]. Eur Urol Focus 4:674–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.08.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kern DE (2015) Curriculum development for medical education: a six-step approach. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

  17. Black N, Murphy M, Lamping D, Mckee M, Sanderson C, Askham J, Marteau T (2013) Consensus development methods, and their use in creating clinical guidelines. Adv Handb Methods Evid Based Healthc 2:426–448. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608344.n24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. McMillan SS, King M, Tully MP (2016) How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques. Int J Clin Pharm 38:655–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-016-0257-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Jones J, Hunter D (1995) Qualitative research: consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 311:376. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7001.376

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Hackett S, Masson H, Phillips S (2006) Exploring consensus in practice with youth who are sexually abusive: findings from a delphi study of practitioner views in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Child Maltreat 11:146–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559505285744

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hertz P, Houlind K, Jepsen J, Bundgaard L, Jensen P, Friis M, Konge L, Bjerrum F (2021) Identifying curriculum content for a cross-specialty robotic-assisted surgery training program: a Delphi study. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08821-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Berner JE, Ewertz E (2019) The importance of non-technical skills in modern surgical practice. Cir Esp 97:190–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ciresp.2018.12.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wan PAG (2019) RN first assistant (RNFA). In: J. Leg. Nurse Consult. http://www.aalnc.org/page/journal-v2.0. Accessed 24 Jan 2022

  24. Bryant EA (2020) British Columbia’S underutilization of registered nurse first assists: a barrier to achieving the quadruple aim. ORNAC J 38:15–30

    Google Scholar 

  25. Pika R, O’Brien B, Murphy J, Markey K, O’Donnell C (2021) The role of the registered nurse first assistant within the perioperative setting. Br J Nurs 30:148–153. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2021.30.3.148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Holbæk E (2021) DSR. https://dsr.dk/fs/fs2/kompetencekort. Accessed 22 Jan 2022

  27. Rusch P, Kimmig R, Lecuru F, Persson J, Ponce J, Degueldre M, Verheijen R (2018) The society of European robotic gynaecological surgery (SERGS) pilot curriculum for robot assisted gynecological surgery. Arch Gynecol Obstet 297:415–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4612-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the participants in the Delphi panel, their departments and hospitals: Rigshospitalet, Herlev Hospital, Zealand University Hospital, Slagelse Hospital, Aalborg University Hospital, Aarhus University Hospital, Region Hospital Herning, Region Hospital Holstebro, Odense University Hospital, Hospital Sønderjylland, Lillebaelt Hospital, and Hospital of South West Jutland.

Funding

This study is funded by CAMES, Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Education, Center for HR and Education, and The Capital Region of Denmark. No external funding was received for the work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for HR and Education, Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation (CAMES), CAMES Rigshospitalet, The Capital Region of Denmark, Ryesgade 53B, Ground Floor, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Louise Møller, Lars Konge & Flemming Bjerrum

  2. Department of Surgery, Hospital Lillebaelt, Kolding, Denmark

    Peter Hertz

  3. Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Kolding, Denmark

    Peter Hertz

  4. Department of Anesthesiology, Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, Herlev, Denmark

    Ulla Grande

  5. Department of Anesthesiology, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark

    Janne Aukdal

  6. Department of Urology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark

    Britt Fredensborg

  7. Department of Anesthesiology, Regional Hospital Holstebro, Holstebro, Denmark

    Helle Kristensen

  8. Department of Urology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark

    Jane Petersson

  9. ROCnord, Robot Center North, The North Region, Aalborg, Denmark

    Jane Petersson

  10. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Lars Konge

  11. Department of Surgery, Herlev-Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark

    Flemming Bjerrum

Authors
  1. Louise Møller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Hertz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ulla Grande
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Janne Aukdal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Britt Fredensborg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Helle Kristensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jane Petersson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Lars Konge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Flemming Bjerrum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Louise Møller.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

OR nurses Louise Møller, Ulla Grande, Janne Aukdal, Britt Fredensborg, Helle Kristensen, and Jane Petersson and Drs. Peter Hertz, Flemming Bjerrum, and Lars Konge have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Ethical approval

The study was submitted to the Scientific Ethics Committees of the Capital Region, Denmark, which found that ethical approval was not required (Journal No. H-20074884). All participants gave informed consent.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 212 kb)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 29 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Møller, L., Hertz, P., Grande, U. et al. Identifying curriculum content for operating room nurses involved in robotic-assisted surgery: a Delphi study. Surg Endosc 37, 2729–2748 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09751-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09751-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation