ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Traditional face-to-face training (FFT) for basic surgical skills is inaccessible and resource-intensive. Noninteractive computer-based learning is more economical but less educationally beneficial. Virtual classroom training (VCT) is a novel method that permits distanced interactive expert instruction. VCT may optimize resources and increase accessibility. OBJECTIVE: We aim to investigate whether VCT is superior to computer-based learning and noninferior to FFT in improving proficiency in basic surgical skills. METHODS: This is a protocol for a parallel-group, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial. A sample of 72 undergraduates will be recruited from 5 medical schools in London. Participants will be stratified by subjective and objective suturing experience level and allocated to 3 intervention groups at a 1:1:1 ratio. VCT will be delivered using the BARCO weConnect software, and FFT will be provided by expert instructors. Optimal student-to-teacher ratios of 12:1 for VCT and 4:1 for FFT will be maintained. The assessed task will be interrupted suturing with hand-tied knots. RESULTS: The primary outcome will be the postintervention Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills score, adjudicated by 2 experts blinded to the study and adjusted for baseline proficiency. The noninferiority margin (δ) will be defined using historical data. CONCLUSIONS: This study will serve as a comprehensive appraisal of the suitability of virtual basic surgical skills classroom training as an alternative to FFT. Our findings will assist the development and implementation of further resource-efficient, accessible, virtual basic surgical skills training programs during the COVID-19 pandemic and in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN12448098; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12448098. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/28671.
ABSTRACT
CONTEXT: The role of robot-assisted surgery continues to expand at a time when trainers and proctors have travel restrictions during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance on setting up and running an optimised telementoring service that can be integrated into current validated curricula. We define a standardised approach to training candidates in skill acquisition via telepresence technologies. We aim to describe an approach based on the current evidence and available technologies, and define the key elements within optimised telepresence services, by seeking consensus from an expert committee comprising key opinion leaders in training. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This project was carried out in phases: a systematic review of the current literature, a teleconference meeting, and then an initial survey were conducted based on the current evidence and expert opinion, and sent to the committee. Twenty-four experts in training, including clinicians, academics, and industry, contributed to the Delphi process. An accelerated Delphi process underwent three rounds and was completed within 72 h. Additions to the second- and third-round surveys were formulated based on the answers and comments from the previous rounds. Consensus opinion was defined as ≥80% agreement. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: There was 100% consensus regarding an urgent need for international agreement on guidance for optimised telepresence. Consensus was reached in multiple areas, including (1) infrastructure and functionality; (2) definitions and terminology; (3) protocols for training, communication, and safety issues; and (4) accountability including ethical and legal issues. The resulting formulated guidance showed good internal consistency among experts, with a Cronbach alpha of 0.90. CONCLUSIONS: Using the Delphi methodology, we achieved international consensus among experts for development and content validation of optimised telepresence services for robotic surgery training. This guidance lays the foundation for launching telepresence services in robotic surgery. This guidance will require further validation. PATIENT SUMMARY: Owing to travel restrictions during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, development of remote training and support via telemedicine is becoming increasingly important. We report a key opinion leader consensus view on a standardised approach to telepresence.
ABSTRACT
CONTEXT: The first case of the new coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2), was identified in Wuhan, China, in late 2019. Since then, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was reclassified as a pandemic, and health systems around the world have faced an unprecedented challenge. OBJECTIVE: To summarize guidelines and recommendations on the urology standard of care during the COVID-19 pandemic. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Guidelines and recommendations published between November 2019 and April 17, 2020 were retrieved using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. This was supplemented by searching the web pages of international urology societies. Our inclusion criteria were guidelines, recommendations, or best practice statements by international urology organizations and reference centers about urological care in different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Of 366 titles identified, 15 guidelines met our criteria. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Of the 15 guidelines, 14 addressed emergency situations and 12 reported on assessment of elective uro-oncology procedures. There was consensus on postponing radical prostatectomy except for high-risk prostate cancer, and delaying treatment for low-grade bladder cancer, small renal masses up to T2, and stage I seminoma. According to nine guidelines that addressed endourology, obstructed or infected kidneys should be decompressed, whereas nonobstructing stones and stent removal should be rescheduled. Five guidelines/recommendations discussed laparoscopic and robotic surgery, while the remaining recommendations focused on outpatient procedures and consultations. All recommendations represented expert opinions, with three specifically endorsed by professional societies. Only the European Association of Urology guidelines provided evidence-based levels of evidence (mostly level 3 evidence). CONCLUSIONS: To make informed decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic, there are multiple national and international guidelines and recommendations for urologists to prioritize the provision of care. Differences among the guidelines were minimal. PATIENT SUMMARY: We performed a systematic review of published recommendations on urological practice during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which provide guidance on prioritizing the timing for different types of urological care.