Advertisement

Training Curriculum in Minimal Access Surgery

Abstract

This chapter will highlight the requirements of designing a learning episode in minimal access surgery. It will also provide educational tools on designing a curriculum for various training grades including fellows and secularists post-accreditation, as well as training surgeons. The chapter also examines in depth methods of assessment of curriculum.

Keywords

Motor and cognitive modelling diagram Laparoscopic VR-simulators Assessment 

References

  1. 1.
    Dent J, Harden MR. A practical guide for medical teachers. Edinburgh/New York: Elsevier Health Sciences UK; 2009.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McKimm J1, Barrow M. Curriculum and course design. Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 2009;70(12):714–7.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schijven MP, Jakimowicz JJ, Broeders IA, Tseng LN. The Eindhoven laparoscopic cholecystectomy training course – improving operating room performance using virtual reality training: results from the First EAES accredited virtual reality training curriculum. Surg Endosc. 2005;19(9):1220–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aggarwal R, Grantcharov T, Moorthy K, et al. A competency-based virtual reality training curriculum for the acquisition of laparoscopic psychomotor skill. Am J Surg. 2006;191(1):128–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sroka G, Feldman LS, Vassilou MC, et al. Fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery simulator training to proficiency improves laparoscopic performance in the operating room- a randomzed controlled trial. Am J Surg. 2010;199:115–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ritter EM1, Scott DJ. Design of a proficiency-based skills training curriculum for the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery. Surg Innov. 2007;14(2):107–12.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cristancho SM, Moussa F, Dubrowski A. A framework-based approach to designing stimulation-augmented surgical education and training programs. Am J Surg. 2011;202:344–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kneebone R. Evaluating clinical simulatations for learning procedural skills: a theory-based approach. Acad Med. 2005;80:549–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cristancho SM, Hodgson AJ, Pachev G, et al. Assessing cognitive & motor performance in minimally invasive surgery (MAS) for training & tool design. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2006;119:108–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aggarwal R, Crantcharow TP, Darzi A. The formula for a successful laparoscopic skills curriculum. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204:697–705.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stefanidis and Henifrod 2009. Arch Surg. 2009;144(1):77–82.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stefanidis D, Korndorffer Jr JR, Heniford BT, et al. Limited feedback and video tutorials optimize learning and resource utilization during laparoscopic simulator training. Surgery. 2007;142(2):202–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fried GM. Lessons from the surgical experience with simulators: incorporation into training and utilization in determining competency. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2006;16(3):425–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kern DE, Thomas PA, Howard DM, et al. Curriculum development for medical education: a six-step approach. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Curriculum planning and development. In: Dent J, Hardan RM. A practical guide for medical teachers. Elsevier Health Sciences, UK, 2009.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ericsson KA. Deliberate practice and the acquisition of maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Acad Med. 2004;79(10 suppl):S70–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ericsson KA, Lehmann AC. Expert and exceptional performance: evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annu Rev Psychol. 1996;47:273–305.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stefanidis D, Akker CE, Greeny FL. Performance goals on simulators boost resident’s demotivation and skills laboratory attendance. J Surg Educ. 2010;67(2):66–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Magil RA. Motor learning and control. Concepts and application. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2004.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van der Meijden OA, Schijven MP. The value of haptic feedback in conventional and robot-assisted minimal invasive surgery and virtual reality training: a current review. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(6):1180–90.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Porte MC, Xeroulis G, Reznick RK, et al. Verbal feedback from an expert is more effective than self-accessed feedback about motion, efficiency in learning new surgical skills. Am J Surg. 2007;193(1):105–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kruglikova L, Grantcharov TP, Drewes AM, et al. The impact of constructive feedback on training in gastrointestinal endoscopy using high fidelity virtual reality simulation. A randomised controlled trial. Gut. 2010;59(2):181–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Winstein CJ, Schmidt RA. Reduced frequency of knowledge of results enhances motor skill learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1990;16:677–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Strandbygaard J. et al. Instructor feedback versus no instructor feedback on performance in a laparoscopic virtual reality simulator: a randomized trial. Ann Surg. 257(5):293 no date.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jowett N, LeBlanc V, Xeroulis G, et al. Surgical skill acquisition with self-directed practice using computer-based video training. Am J Surg. 2007;193(2):237–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Summers AN, Rinehart GC, Simpson D, et al. Acquisition of surgical skills: a randomised trial of didactic, video tape, and computer-based training. Surgery. 1999;126(2):330–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stefanidis D. Optimal Acquisition and assessment of proficiency on simulators in surgery. Surg Clin North Am. 2010;90:475–89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moulton CA, Dubrowski A, Macrae H, et al. Teaching surgical skills: what kind of practice makes perfect?: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2006;244(3):400–9.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mackay S, Morgan P, Datta V, et al. Practice distribution in procedural skills training: a randomized contolled trial. Surg Endosc. 2002;16(6):957–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Karni A, Meyer G, Rey-Hipolito C, et al. The acquisition of skilled motor performance: fast and slow experience-driven changes in primary motor cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998;95(3):861–8.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Walter KC, Acker CE, Heniford BT, et al. Performance goals on simulators boost resident motivation and skills lab attendance. J Am Col Surg. 2008;207(3):S88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gallagher AG, Ritter EM, Champion H, et al. Virtual reality simulation for the operating room: proficiency-based training as a paradigm shift in surgical skills training. Ann Surg. 2005;241(2):364–72.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stafanidis D, Heniford BT. The formula for successful laparoscopic skills curriculum. Arch Surg. 2009;144(1):77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Madan AK, Harper JL, Taddeucci RJ, et al. Goal-directed laparoscopic training leads to better laparoscopic skills acquisition. Surgery. 2008;144(2):345–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brydges R, Carnahan H, Safir O, et al. How effective is self-guided learning of clinical technical skills? It’s all about process. Med Educ. 2009;43(6):507–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Brinkman W, Buzink SN, Alevizos L, de Hingh IH, Jakimowicz JJ. Criterion based laparoscopic training reduces total training time. Surg Endosc. 2012;16(4):1095–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Petrusa ER, et al. Features and use of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Med Teach. 2005;27(1):10–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ali MR, Mowery Y, Kaplan B, et al. Training the novice n laparoscopy. More chalenge is better. Surg Endosc. 2002;16(12):1732–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wulf G, Lee TD. Contextual Interference in movements of the same class: differential effects on program and parameter learning. J Mot Behav. 1993;25(4):254–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kurahashi A, Leming K, Carnahan H, et al. Effects of expertise, practice and contextual interference on adaptations to visuo-motor MAS alignment. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2008;132:225–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stefanidis D, Scerbo MW, Korndorffer Jr JR, et al. Redefining simulator proficiency using automaticity theory. Am J Surg. 2007;193(4):502–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pluyter JR, Rutkowski AF, Jakimowicz JJ. Immersive training: breaking the bubble and measuring the heat. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:1545–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pluyter JR, Buzink SN, Rutkowski AF, Jakimowicz JJ. Do absorption and realistic distraction influence performance of component task surgerical procedure? Surg Endosc. 2010;24(4):902–7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Xiao DJ1, Jakimowicz JJ, Albayrak A, Goossens RH. Ergonomic factors on task performance in laparoscopic surgery training. Appl Ergon. 2012;43(3):548–53. doi:  10.1016/j.apergo.2011.08.010.
  45. 45.
    Gallagher AG, Ritter EM, Satava RM. Fundamental principles of validation, and reliability: rigorous science for the assessment of surgical education and training. Surg Endosc. 2003;17(10):1525–9. Epub 2003 Sep 19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Stefanidis D, Korndorffer Jr JR, Markley S, et al. Closing the gap in operative performance between novices and experts: does harder mean better for laparoscopic simulator training. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;205(2):307–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kogan JR, Holmboe ES, Hauer KE. Tools for direct observation and assessment of clinical skills of medical trainees: a systematic review. JAMA. 2009;302:1316–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ahmed K, Miskovic A, Skovuc D, Darzi A, et al. Observational tools for assessment of procedural skills: a systemic review. Am J Surg. 2011;202:469–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Epstein RM. Assessment in medical education. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:387–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Leong JJ, Leff DR, Das A, et al. Validation of orthopaedic bench models for trauma surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:958–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Joice P, Hanna GB, Cuschieri A. Errors enacted during endoscopic surgery – a human reliability analysis. Appl Ergon. 1998;29:409–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Tang B, Hanna GB, Joice P, et al. Identification and categorization of technical errors by Observational Clinical Human Reliability Assessment (OCHRA) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Arch Surg. 2004;139:1215–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Tang B, Hanna GB, Cuschieri A. Analysis of errors enacted by surgical trainees during skills training courses. Surgery. 2005;138:14–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Tang B, Hanna GB, Carter F, et al. Competence assessment of laparoscopic operative and cognitive skills: Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) or Observational Clinical Human Reliability Assessment (OCHRA). World J Surg. 2006;30:527–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Vassiliou MC, Kaneva PA, Poulose BK, Dunkin BJ, Marks JM, Sadik R, Sroka G, Anvari M, Thaler K, Adrales GL, Hazey JW, Lightdale JR, Velanovich V, Swanstrom LL, Mellinger JD, Fried GM. Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Skills (GAGES): a valid measurement tool for technical skills in flexible endoscopy. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(8):1834–41. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-0882-8. Epub 2010 Jan 29.
  56. 56.
    Ottowa. Performance in assessment : consensus statement and recommandations. From: http://www.academia.edu/2550139/Performance_in_assessment_Consensus_statement_and_recommendations_from_the_Ottawa_conference.
  57. 57.
    Miskovic D, Wyles SM, Francis NK, Rockall TA, Kennedy RH, Hanna GB on behalf of the National Training Programme in Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery. Laparoscopic Colorectal Competency Assessment Tool (LCAT) for the National Training Programme in England. Ann Surg. 2013;257(3):476–82.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Padney VA, Wolfe JH, Black SA, et al. Self-assessment of technical skill in surgery: the need for expert feedback. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2008;90(4):286–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    MacDonald J, Williams RG, Rogers DA. Self-assessment in simulation-based surgical skills training. Am J Surg. 2003;185:319–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Falchikov NB, Boud D. Student self-assessment in higher education: a meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res. 1989;59:395–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Brewster LP, Risucci DA, Joehl RJ, et al. Comparison of resident self-assessment with trained faculty and standardized patient assessment of clinical and technical skills in a structured educational module. Am J Surg. 2008;195:1–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Arora S, Miskovic D, Hull L, et al. Self vs expert assessment of technical and non-technical skills in high fidelity simulation. Am J Surg. 2011;202:500–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Moorthy K, Munz Y, Adams S, et al. Self-assessment of performance among surgical trainees during simulated operating theater. Am J Surg. 2006;192:114–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    McKimm J. Curriculum design and development. From: www.faculty.londondeanery.ac.uk/…/Curriculum_de looks to be incomplete
  65. 65.
    Dunn WR, Hamilton DD, Harden RM. Techniques of identifying competencies needed by doctors. Med Teach. 1985;7(1):15–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Jakimowicz JJ, Cuschieri A. Time for evidence-based minimal access surgery training – simulate or sink. Surg Endosc. 2005;19:1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Jakimowicz JJ, Fingerhut A. Simulation in surgery. Br J Surg. 2009;96:563–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Hasson HM. Core competency in laparoendoscopic surgery. JSLS. 2006;10:16–20.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Schijven MP. Virtual reality simulation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy – the process of validation and implementation in the surgical curriculum outlined. Phd thesis, University of Leiden, Leiden; 2005.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Buzink SN, Schiappa JM, Bicha Castelo H, Fingerhut A, Hanna G, Jakimowicz JJ. The laparoscopic surgical skills A, programme: setting the European standard. Revista portuguesa de cirurgia. 2012;20:33–40.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Buzink SN, Soltes M, Fingerhut A, Hanna G, Jakimowicz JJ. The laparoscopic surgical skills programme: setting the European standard. Videosurg Mininv. 2012;7:188–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research and EducationCatharina HospitalEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Faculty of Industrial Design EngineeringDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations