Jeanett Strandbygaard

Instructor feedback versus no instructor feedback on performance in a laparoscopic virtual reality simulator: a randomized trial.

Objective:To investigate the impact of instructor feedback versus no instructor feedback when training a complex operational task on a laparoscopic virtual reality simulator. Background:Simulators are now widely accepted as a training tool, but there is insufficient knowledge about how much feedback is necessary, which is useful for sustainable implementation. Methods:A randomized trial complying with CONSORT Statement. All participants had to reach a predefined proficiency level for a complex operational task on a virtual reality simulator. The intervention group received standardized instructor feedback a maximum of 3 times. The control group did not receive instructor feedback. Participants were senior medical students without prior laparoscopic experience (n = 99). Outcome measures were time, repetitions, and performance score to reach a predefined proficiency level. Furthermore, influence of sex and perception of own surgical skills were examined. Results:Time (in minutes) and repetitions were reduced in the intervention group (162 vs 342 minutes; P < 0.005) and (29 vs 65 repetitions; P < 0.005). The control group achieved a higher performance score than the intervention group (57% vs 49%; P = 0.004). Men used less time (in minutes) than women (P = 0.037), but no sex difference was observed for repetitions (P = 0.20). Participants in the intervention group had higher self-perception regarding surgical skills after the trial (P = 0.011). Conclusions:Instructor feedback increases the efficiency when training a complex operational task on a virtual reality simulator; time and repetitions used to achieve a predefined proficiency level were significantly reduced in the group that received instructor feedback compared with the control group. Trial registration number: NCT01497782.

A structured four‐step curriculum in basic laparoscopy: development and validation

The objective of this study was to develop a four‐step curriculum in basic laparoscopy consisting of validated modules integrating a cognitive component, a practical component and a procedural component.

Effect of Instructor Feedback on Skills Retention After Laparoscopic Simulator Training: Follow-Up of a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND Instructor feedback reduces the number of repetitions and time to reach proficiency during laparoscopic simulator training. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of instructor feedback on long-term skill retention. METHODS A 6-month follow-up of a randomized trial. Participants were surgical novices (medical students). All participants (n = 99) initially practiced a laparoscopic salpingectomy on the LapSim virtual reality simulator to proficiency. The intervention group could request instructor feedback, whereas the control group could not. After 6 months, the participants (n = 65) practiced on the simulator until they reached proficiency again. The primary outcomes were the total time and the number of repetitions. RESULTS Initially, the intervention group used significantly fewer repetitions (29 vs 65, p < 0.0005) and less total training time (162 vs 342 min, p < 0.0005) than the control group to reach the proficiency level. At follow-up, both the groups used an equal number of repetitions (21 vs 20, p = 0.72) and time (83 vs 73 min, p = 0.37) to reach the same proficiency level. CONCLUSIONS Instructor feedback during proficiency-based laparoscopic simulator training does not affect the long-term retention of skills.

Medical Students as Facilitators for Laparoscopic Simulator Training

BACKGROUND Teaching basic clinical skills to student peers and residents by medical students has previously been shown effective. This study examines if medical students can facilitate laparoscopic procedural tasks to residents using a virtual reality simulator. METHODS This was a retrospective study comparing 2 groups of gynecology residents. One group was instructed by 2 student facilitators, and a resident facilitator instructed the other group. Facilitators in both the groups were experienced in laparoscopic simulator training. The outcome measures were time and repetitions to complete a laparoscopic simulator training program. RESULTS A total of 51 residents participated: 15 in the student-facilitated group and 36 in the resident-facilitated group after 18 and 7 residents dropped out, respectively. The student-facilitated group averaged 230 minutes, while the resident-facilitated group averaged 200 minutes (p = 0.724). To complete the final examination module, the student-facilitated group required 19.5 repetitions vs 39.2 in the resident-facilitated group (p = 0.007). CONCLUSION Our findings suggest that students can be used as facilitators as an alternative to residents when practicing on a laparoscopic virtual reality simulator.

Off-site training of laparoscopic skills, a scoping review using a thematic analysis

BackgroundThe focus of research in simulation-based laparoscopic training has changed from examining whether simulation training works to examining how best to implement it. In laparoscopic skills training, portable and affordable box trainers allow for off-site training. Training outside simulation centers and hospitals can increase access to training, but also poses new challenges to implementation. This review aims to guide implementation of off-site training of laparoscopic skills by critically reviewing the existing literature.MethodsAn iterative systematic search was carried out in MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, Scopus, and PsychINFO, following a scoping review methodology. The included literature was analyzed iteratively using a thematic analysis approach. The study was reported in accordance with the STructured apprOach to the Reporting In healthcare education of Evidence Synthesis statement.ResultsFrom the search, 22 records were identified and included for analysis. A thematic analysis revealed the themes: access to training, protected training time, distribution of training, goal setting and testing, task design, and unsupervised training. The identified themes were based on learning theories including proficiency-based learning, deliberate practice, and self-regulated learning.ConclusionsMethods of instructional design vary widely in off-site training of laparoscopic skills. Implementation can be facilitated by organizing courses and training curricula following sound education theories such as proficiency-based learning and deliberate practice. Directed self-regulated learning has the potential to improve off-site laparoscopic skills training; however, further studies are needed to demonstrate the effect of this type of instructional design.

Ensuring Competency of Novice Laparoscopic Surgeons—Exploring Standard Setting Methods and their Consequences

OBJECTIVE Simulation-based assessment tools have been developed to allow for proficiency-based simulator training in laparoscopy. However, few studies have examined the consequences of different standard setting methods or examined what level of proficiency is considered adequate for trainees. The objectives of the present study were to explore the consequences of different standard setting methods and to examine the proficiency level that surgical trainees are expected to reach, before performing supervised surgery on patients. DESIGN Study participants undertook the Training and Assessment of Basic Laparoscopic Techniques test. The tests were video-recorded and rated using a simple scoring system based on number of errors and time. Participants were then asked to assess how high a score a novice should reach before performing supervised surgery on a patient. We then compared 3 methods of standard setting: expert performance level, contrasting groups method, and a modified Angoff method. SETTING The study was conducted at the Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation. The academy provides surgical simulation training in laparoscopy for trainees at the hospitals in the Capital Region and the Zealand Region of Denmark. PARTICIPANTS Participants were recruited among surgical trainees in their first year of specialty training from surgery, gynecology, and urology departments. A total of 40 participants were included and completed the trial. RESULTS The different standard setting methods resulted in different pass/fail levels. At the expert performance level, the pass/fail level was 474 points-the contrasting groups method resulted in 358 points and the modified Angoff method resulted in 311 points among experienced surgeons, and 386 points among trainees. The different proficiency levels resulted in a failure rate of 0% to 50% of experienced surgeons and a pass rate of 0% to 25% of novices. Novice laparoscopic surgeons set a higher pass/fail level than experienced surgeons did (p = 0.008). CONCLUSION Required proficiency levels varies depending on the standard setting method used, which highlights the importance of using an established standard setting method to set the pass/fail level.

Procedural specificity in laparoscopic simulator training: protocol for a randomised educational superiority trial

BackgroundThe use of structured curricula for minimally invasive surgery training is becoming increasingly popular. However, many laparoscopic training programs still use basic skills and isolated task training, despite increasing evidence to support the use of training models with higher functional resemblance, such as whole procedural modules. In contrast to basic skills training, procedural training involves several cognitive skills such as elements of planning, movement integration, and how to avoid adverse events. The objective of this trial is to investigate the specificity of procedural practice in laparoscopic simulator training.Methods/DesignA randomised single-centre educational superiority trial. Participants are 96 surgical novices (medical students) without prior laparoscopic experience. Participants start by practicing a series of basic skills tasks to a predefined proficiency level on a virtual reality laparoscopy simulator. Upon reaching proficiency, the participants are randomised to either the intervention group, which practices two procedures (an appendectomy followed by a salpingectomy) or to the control group, practicing only one procedure (a salpingectomy) on the simulator. 1:1 central randomisation is used and participants are stratified by sex and time to complete the basic skills. Data collection is done at a surgical skills centre.The primary outcome is the number of repetitions required to reach a predefined proficiency level on the salpingectomy module. The secondary outcome is the total training time to proficiency. The improvement in motor skills and effect on cognitive load are also explored.DiscussionThe results of this trial might provide new knowledge on how the technical part of surgical training curricula should be comprised in the future. To examine the specificity of practice in procedural simulator training is of great importance in order to develop more comprehensive surgical curricula.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02069951

Evaluation of Procedural Simulation as a Training and Assessment Tool in General Surgery—Simulating a Laparoscopic Appendectomy

BACKGROUND Laparoscopic appendectomy is a commonly performed surgical procedure, but few training models have been described for it. We examined a virtual reality module for practising a laparoscopic appendectomy. METHODS A prospective cohort study with the following 3 groups of surgeons (n = 45): novices (0 procedures), intermediates (10-50 procedures), and experienced (>100 procedures). After being introduced to the simulator and 1 familiarization attempt on the procedural module, the participants practiced the module 20 times. Movements, task time, and procedure-specific parameters were compared over time. RESULTS The time and movement parameters were significantly different during the first attempt, and more experienced surgeons used fewer movements and less time than novices (p < 0.01), although only 2 parameters were significantly different between novices and intermediates. All 3 groups improved significantly over 20 attempts (p < 0.0001). The intraclass correlation coefficient varied between 0.55 and 0.68 and did not differ significantly between the 3 groups (p > 0.05). When comparing novices with experienced surgeons, novices had a higher risk of burn damage to cecum (odds ratio [OR] = 3.0 [95% CI: 1.3; 7.0] p = 0.03), pressure damage to appendix (OR = 3.1 [95% CI: 2.0; 4.9] p < 0.0001), and grasping of the appendix (OR = 2.9 [95% CI: 1.8; 4.7] p < 0.0001). The risk of causing a perforation was not significantly different among the different experience levels (OR = 1.9 [95% CI: 0.9; 3.8] p = 0.14). Only 3 out of 5 error parameters differed significantly when comparing novices and experienced surgeons. Similarly, when comparing intermediates and novices, it was only 2 of the parameters that differed. DISCUSSION The simulator module for practising laparoscopic appendectomy may be useful as a training tool, but further development is required before it can be used for assessment purposes. Procedural simulation may demonstrate more variation for movement parameters, and future research should focus on developing better procedure-specific parameters.

Twelve tips for assessing surgical performance and use of technical assessment scales

Abstract Using validated assessment scales for technical competence can help structure and standardize assessment and feedback for both the trainee and the supervisor and thereby avoid bias and drive learning. Correct assessment of operative skills can establish learning curves and allow adequate monitoring. However, the assessment of surgical performance is not an easy task, since it includes many proxy parameters, which are hard to measure. Although numerous technical assessment scales exist, both within laparoscopic and open surgery, the validity evidence is often sparse, and this can raise doubts about reliability and educational outcome. Furthermore, the implementation of technical assessment scales varies due to several obstacles and doubts about accurate use. In this 12-tips article, we aim to give the readers a critical and useful appraisal of some of the common questions and misunderstandings regarding the use of surgical assessment scales and provide tips to ease and overcome potential pitfalls.