Abstract
Background
Robotic surgery has seen unprecedented growth, requiring hospitals to establish or update credentialing policies regarding this technology. Concerns about verification of robotic surgeon proficiency and the adequacy of current credentialing criteria to maintain patient safety have arisen. The aim of this project was to examine existing institutional credentialing requirements for robotic surgery and evaluate their adequacy in ensuring surgeon proficiency.
Methods
Robotic credentialing policies for community and academic surgery programs were acquired and reviewed. Common criteria across institutions related to credentialing and recredentialing were identified and the average, standard deviation, and range of numeric requirements, if defined, was calculated. Criteria for proctors and assistants were also analyzed.
Results
Policies from 42 geographically dispersed US hospitals were reviewed. The majority of policies relied on a defined number of proctored cases as a surrogate for proficiency with an average of 3.24 ± 1.69 and a range of 1–10 cases required for initial credentialing. While 34 policies (81%) addressed maintenance of privileges requirements, there was wide variability in the average number of required robotic cases (7.19 ± 3.28 per year) and range (1–15 cases per year). Only 11 policies (26%) addressed the maximum allowable time gap between robotic cases.
Conclusion
Significant variability in credentialing policies exists in a representative sample of US hospitals. Most policies require completion of a robotic surgery training course and a small number of proctored cases; however, ongoing objective performance assessments and patient outcome monitoring was rarely described. Existing credentialing policies are likely inadequate to ensure surgeon proficiency; therefore, development and wide implementation of robust credentialing guidelines is recommended to optimize patient safety and outcomes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bahler CD, Sundaram CP (2014) Training in robotic surgery: simulators, surgery, and credentialing. Urol Clin North Am 41:581–589
Intuitive Surgical Inc. (2017) Annual Report 2017. https://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReportArchive/i/NASDAQ_ISRG_2017.pdf. Accessed 9 Dec 2019
The Joint Commission (2016) Ambulatory Care Program: The Who, What, When, and Wheres of Credentialing and Privileging. https://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/AHC_who_what_credentialing_booklet.pdf. Accessed 9 Dec 2019
Lee JY, Mucksavage P, Sundaram CP, McDougall EM (2011) Best practices for robotic surgery training and credentialing. J Urol 185:1191–1197
US Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health (2013) Medical Product Safety Network (MedSun) Small Sample Survey. https://www.fda.gov/media/87485/download. Accessed 17 Oct 2019
The American Board of Surgery (2020) Training Requirements. https://www.absurgery.org/default.jsp?certgsqe_training. Accessed 6 Feb 2020.
American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (2020) Specialty Exam Eligibility Requirements. https://www.abog.org/program-resources/get-to-know-abog/specialty-eligibility-requirements. Accessed 6 Feb 2020.
Satava RM, Stefanidis D, Levy JS, Smith R, Martin JR, Monfared S, Timsina LR, Darzi AW, Moglia A, Brand TC, Dorin RP, Dumon KR, Francone TD, Georgiou E, Goh AC, Marcet JE, Martino MA, Sudan R, Vale J, Gallagher AG (2019) Proving the effectiveness of the Fundamentals of robotic surgery (FRS) skills curriculum: a single-blinded, multispecialty, multi-institutional randomized control trial. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003220
Herron DM, Marohn M, Group S-MRSC (2008) A consensus document on robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 22:313–325. (discussion 311-312)
Taylor vs. Intuitive Surgical Inc. (2017) https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/2017/92210-1.html. Accessed 17 Oct 2019
Hsieh HF, Shannon SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 15:1277–1288
Bengtsson M (2016) How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open 2:8–14
Kondracki NL, Wellman NS, Amundson DR (2002) Content analysis: review of methods and their applications in nutrition education. J Nutr Educ Behav 34:224–230
Pernar LIM, Robertson FC, Tavakkoli A, Sheu EG, Brooks DC, Smink DS (2017) An appraisal of the learning curve in robotic general surgery. Surg Endosc 31:4583–4596
McLean T (2007) The complexity of litigation associated with robotic surgery and cybersurgery. Int J Med Robot 3:23–29
Jenison EL, Gil KM, Lendvay TS, Guy MS (2012) Robotic surgical skills: acquisition, maintenance, and degradation. JSLS 16:218–228
Funding
No funding was received in support of this project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosures
Dr. Rosen has given talks and led courses sponsored by Intuitive Surgical. Dr. Levy is the Interim Executive Director at the Institute for Surgical Excellence (ISE), a 501(c)(3) public charity. Dr. Martino is a patient safety consultant for Intuitive Surgical, Medtronic, and Ethicon as well as an educator for GlaxoSmithKline and a peer reviewer for UpToDate. Dr. Stefanidis has received a research grant from ExplORer Surgical for unrelated work. Dr. Huffman has no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Huffman, E.M., Rosen, S.A., Levy, J.S. et al. Are current credentialing requirements for robotic surgery adequate to ensure surgeon proficiency?. Surg Endosc 35, 2104–2109 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07608-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07608-2