TY - JOUR
T1 - Common Components of General Surgery Robotic Educational Programs
AU - Stewart, Camille L.
AU - Green, Courtney
AU - Meara, Michael P.
AU - Awad, Michael M.
AU - Nelson, Megan
AU - Coker, Alisa M.
AU - Porterfield, John
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023
PY - 2023/11
Y1 - 2023/11
N2 - OBJECTIVE: Robotically assisted surgery has become more common in general surgery, but there is limited guidance from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) regarding this type of training. We sought to determine common elements and differences in the robotic educational curricula developed by general surgery residency programs. DESIGN: Robotic educational curricula were obtained from the 7 individuals who presented at the workshop, “Robotic Education in General Surgery” at the 2023 Association of Program Directors in Surgery annual meeting. RESULTS: All 7 general surgery programs had training beginning intern year, required online robotic modules, had at least 1 dedicated simulation training console not used for clinical purposes, and ran dry and wet (tissue) robotic labs at least annually. All programs had bedside and console surgeon case minimums and had administrative support to run the educational programs. Differences existed regarding how training intern year was executed, the simulations required, clinical practice minimum requirements, how progress was monitored over time, and how case numbers were tracked. Some programs had salary support for a director of robotic education. CONCLUSIONS: There are several common elements to robotic educational curricula in general surgery, however significant variation does exist between programs. Given the frequency of robotic use in general surgery and current lack of standardization, formal guidance from the ACGME specifically regarding robotic education in general surgery residency is warranted.
AB - OBJECTIVE: Robotically assisted surgery has become more common in general surgery, but there is limited guidance from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) regarding this type of training. We sought to determine common elements and differences in the robotic educational curricula developed by general surgery residency programs. DESIGN: Robotic educational curricula were obtained from the 7 individuals who presented at the workshop, “Robotic Education in General Surgery” at the 2023 Association of Program Directors in Surgery annual meeting. RESULTS: All 7 general surgery programs had training beginning intern year, required online robotic modules, had at least 1 dedicated simulation training console not used for clinical purposes, and ran dry and wet (tissue) robotic labs at least annually. All programs had bedside and console surgeon case minimums and had administrative support to run the educational programs. Differences existed regarding how training intern year was executed, the simulations required, clinical practice minimum requirements, how progress was monitored over time, and how case numbers were tracked. Some programs had salary support for a director of robotic education. CONCLUSIONS: There are several common elements to robotic educational curricula in general surgery, however significant variation does exist between programs. Given the frequency of robotic use in general surgery and current lack of standardization, formal guidance from the ACGME specifically regarding robotic education in general surgery residency is warranted.
KW - curriculum development
KW - general surgery
KW - minimally invasive surgery
KW - robotic surgery
KW - the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85168492190&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jsurg.2023.07.013
DO - 10.1016/j.jsurg.2023.07.013
M3 - Article
C2 - 37596106
AN - SCOPUS:85168492190
SN - 1931-7204
VL - 80
SP - 1717
EP - 1722
JO - Journal of Surgical Education
JF - Journal of Surgical Education
IS - 11
ER -