Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35696047›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2023

A resident robotic curriculum utilizing self-selection and a web-based feedback tool.

Amanda L Merriman, Megan E Tarr, Kevin R Kasten, Erinn M Myers

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Amanda L MerrimanDivision of Urogynecology and Pelvic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA. Amanda.merriman@atriumhealth.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6017-9952
Megan E TarrDivision of Urogynecology and Pelvic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Kevin R KastenDivision of Colorectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Erinn M MyersDivision of Urogynecology and Pelvic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To describe an obstetrics and gynecology residency robotic curriculum, facilitated by a web-based feedback and case-tracking tool, allowing for self-selection into advanced training. Phase I (Basic) was required for all residents and included online training modules, online assessment, and robotic bedside assistant dry lab. Phase II (Advanced) was elective console training. Before live surgery, 10 simulation drills completed to proficiency were required. A web-based tool was used for surgical feedback and case-tracking. Online assessments, drill reports, objective GEARS assessments, subjective feedback, and case-logs were reviewed (7/2018-6/2019). A satisfaction survey was reviewed. Twenty four residents completed Phase I training and 10 completed Phase II. To reach simulation proficiency, residents spent a median of 4.1 h performing required simulation drills (median of 10 (3, 26) attempts per drill) before live surgery. 128 post-surgical feedback entries were completed after performance as bedside assistant (75%, n = 96) and console surgeon (5.5%, n = 7). The most common procedure was hysterectomy 111/193 (58%). Resident console surgeons performed portions of 32 cases with a mean console time of 34.6 ± 19.5 min. Mean GEARS score 20.6 ± 3.7 (n = 28). Mean non-technical feedback results: communication (4.2 ± 0.8, n = 61), workload management (3.9 ± 0.9, n = 54), team skills (4.3 ± 0.8, n = 60). Residents completing > 50% of case assessed as "apprentice" 38.5% or "competent" 23% (n = 13). After curriculum change, 100% of surveyed attendings considered residents prepared for live surgical training, vs 17% (n = 6) prior to curriculum change [survey response rate 27/44 (61%)]. Attendings and residents were satisfied with curriculum; 95% and recommended continued use 90% (n = 19).This two-phase robotic curriculum allows residents to self-select into advanced training, alleviating many challenges of graduated robotic training.

Indexed as

Internship and ResidencyRobotic Surgical ProceduresClinical CompetenceCurriculumFeedbackFemaleHumansInternetEducationFeedbackResidentRobotic surgerySimulation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.