Search

Aim: There is growing pressure from the government and the public to define proficiency standards for surgical skills. Aim of this study was to estimate the reliability of the Program for Laparoscopic Urological Skills (PLUS) assessment and to set a certification standard for second-year urological residents. Methods: Fifty participants were assessed on performance time and performance quality to investigate the reliability of the PLUS assessment. Generalisability coefficient of 0.8, on a scale of 0 to 1.0, was considered to indicate good reliability for assessment purposes. Pass/fail standards were based on laparoscopic experience: Novices, intermediates, and experts (>100 procedures). The pass/fail standards were investigated for the PLUS performances of 33 second-year urological residents. Results: Fifteen novices, twenty-three intermediates and twelve experts were included. An inter-trial reliability of >0.80 was reached with two trials for each task. Inter-rater reliability of the quality measurements was 0.79 for two judges. Pass/fail scores were determined for the novice/intermediate boundary and the intermediate/expert boundary. Pass rates for second-year residents were 63.64% and 9.09%, respectively. Conclusion: The PLUS assessment is reliable for setting a certification standard for second-year urological residents that serves as a starting point for residents to proceed to the next level of laparoscopic competency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the place of the TURPsim (Simbionix/VirtaMed, Beit Goal, Israel) within a urologic residency training curriculum, including training needs analysis (TNA) and investigating its validity., Materials and Methods: Training needs analysis was conducted by an expert panel to identify procedural steps and pitfalls. Performance metrics of the simulator were compared with the TNA results. Participants were distributed according to their level of experience (completed transurethral resection of the prostate [TURP] procedures) as follows: novices (0), intermediates (1-50), and experts (>50). They followed standardized instructions and then performed 2 complete TURP procedures on the TURPsim., Results: Ten of 22 procedural steps (TNA) and 4 of 11 pitfalls were covered by the TURPsim. A total of 66 participants, 22 in each group, were included. Median general judgment (face and content) about the TURPsim was rated 7.3 (median, 7; range, 3-9). Ninety-three percent of all participants qualified the TURPsim as a useful training model. Intermediates and experts had a significant faster resection time and less blood loss compared with novices (construct) (P = 0.001). Novices needed to re-resect previous lobes, and they also resected the prostate in the incorrect order more frequently compared with intermediates and experts., Conclusions: Training needs analysis is of paramount importance in the evaluation process of a training program. This curriculum-based approach including validity of a simulator seems valuable and may narrow the gap between skills laboratory and clinical practice. This study showed face, content, and construct validity of the TURPsim, and this simulator finds its place in the current urologic curriculum to train basic and procedural TURP skills.

Introduction: : We describe a new simulator for teaching transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and present the results of a preliminary evaluation of the simulator's realism and usefulness for training., Methods: : A simulator for abdominal ultrasound was adjusted by the developer to enable simulation of TRUS by providing an opening for inserting a dummy rectal probe. To enable TRUS simulation, data from ultrasound prostate imaging of eight real patients obtained with our regular ultrasound machine were transferred to the simulator by connecting the computer of the simulator to the ultrasound machine. These data were used to create images in the TRUS simulator. Residents and urologists used the simulator to perform TRUS in one of the eight patient cases and judged the simulator's realism and usefulness., Results: : We were able to construct an initial urological module for the TRUS simulator. The images shown on the monitor of the simulator are quite realistic. The simulator can be used without difficulty to collect data, to create cases, and to perform TRUS. The absence of an option for prostate biopsy and the lack of tissue resistance were mentioned as two important shortcomings. Forty-seven participants rated the simulator's overall realism and usefulness for training purposes as 3.8 (standard deviation: 0.7) and 4.0 (standard deviation: 0.8) on a five-point Likert scale, respectively., Conclusions: : The simulator we describe can be used as a training tool for TRUS. It enables training with different patient cases and minimizes the burden to patients. Simulation of prostate biopsies should be added to increase the model's usefulness.