Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36471061›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023

Identifying curriculum content for operating room nurses involved in robotic-assisted surgery: a Delphi study.

Louise Møller, Peter Hertz, Ulla Grande, Janne Aukdal, Britt Fredensborg, Helle Kristensen, Jane Petersson, Lars Konge, Flemming Bjerrum

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

9 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Louise MøllerCenter for HR and Education, Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation (CAMES), CAMES Rigshospitalet, The Capital Region of Denmark, Ryesgade 53B, Ground Floor, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. louise.moeller.04@regionh.dk.ORCID 0000-0002-8126-0124
Peter HertzDepartment of Surgery, Hospital Lillebaelt, Kolding, Denmark.
Ulla GrandeDepartment of Anesthesiology, Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, Herlev, Denmark.
Janne AukdalDepartment of Anesthesiology, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark.
Britt FredensborgDepartment of Urology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Helle KristensenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Regional Hospital Holstebro, Holstebro, Denmark.
Jane PeterssonDepartment of Urology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Lars KongeCenter for HR and Education, Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation (CAMES), CAMES Rigshospitalet, The Capital Region of Denmark, Ryesgade 53B, Ground Floor, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Flemming BjerrumCenter for HR and Education, Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation (CAMES), CAMES Rigshospitalet, The Capital Region of Denmark, Ryesgade 53B, Ground Floor, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Gentofte Hospital · DKAalborg University Hospital · DKOdense University Hospital · DKRegional Hospital Holstebro · DKRigshospitalet · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DKUniversity of Southern Denmark · DKZealand University Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrently, no generally accepted curriculum for operating room nurses (OR nurses) working with robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) exists. OR nurses working with RAS require different competencies than regular OR nurses, e.g. knowledge of the robotic system and equipment and specific emergency undocking procedures. The objective of this study was to identify learning goals for a curriculum for OR nurses working with RAS and to investigate which learning methods should be used.

methodsA three-round Delphi approach, with an additional survey, was used in this study. Four OR nurses from every department in gynecology, urology, and surgical gastroenterology doing RAS in Denmark were invited to participate.

resultsThe response rates were 93%, 81%, and 79%, respectively, in the three rounds of the Delphi survey and 68% in the additional survey. After the processing of data, a list of 57 learning goals, sorted under 11 domains, was produced. 41 learning goals were rated Relevant, Very relevant, or Essential spread over 10 of the 11 domains. The top 3 learning goals rated as Essential: Identify the most common injuries related to patient positioning during robotic-assisted surgery and know how to avoid them, Connect, calibrate and handle the scope, Perform an emergency undocking procedure. The panel rated Supervised training during surgery on patients as the most relevant learning method, followed by Dry lab and Team training.

conclusionsThe learning goals identified in this study, can be used as the basis for a curriculum for OR nurses working with RAS. During the processing, it became clear that there is a need to further investigate issues such as communication challenges, awareness of emergency procedures, and differences in the skills required depending on the role of the RAS nurse.

Indexed as

Robotic Surgical ProceduresClinical CompetenceCurriculumDelphi TechniqueHumansLearningOperating RoomsCurriculum developmentDelphiEducationNurseRobotic-assisted surgery

Identifiers

PMID36471061
OpenAlexW4310776522

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.