Laparoscopic simulation training in gynaecology: Current provision and staff attitudes – a cross-sectional survey

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to explore current provision of laparoscopic simulation training, and to determine attitudes of trainers and trainees to the role of simulators in surgical training across the UK. An anonymous cross-sectional survey with cluster sampling was developed and circulated. All Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) Training Programme Directors (TPD), College Tutors (RCT) and Trainee representatives (TR) across the UK were invited to participate. One hundred and ninety-six obstetricians and gynaecologists participated. Sixty-three percent of hospitals had at least one box trainer, and 14.6% had least one virtual-reality simulator. Only 9.3% and 3.6% stated that trainees used a structured curriculum on box and virtual-reality simulators, respectively. Respondents working in a Large/Teaching hospital (p = 0.008) were more likely to agree that simulators enhance surgical training. Eighty-nine percent agreed that simulators improve the quality of training, and should be mandatory or desirable for junior trainees. Consultants (p = 0.003) and respondents over 40 years (p = 0.011) were more likely to hold that a simulation test should be undertaken before live operation. Our data demonstrated, therefore, that availability of laparoscopic simulators is inconsistent, with limited use of mandatory structured curricula. In contrast, both trainers and trainees recognise a need for greater use of laparoscopic simulation for surgical training.

Keywords::

• simulation
• training
• curriculum
• laparoscopic surgery

Contribution to authorship

All the authors participated in meetings to develop the study methods and protocols. Everyone listed met the ICMJE criteria for authorship. More specifically:

C Burden (CB): Chief investigator, prepared protocol, planned and undertook study, contributed to analysis, wrote and edited manuscript.

R Fox (RF): Conceived idea, designed study, analysed data, wrote and edited manuscript.

K Hinshaw (KH): Designed study, edited manuscript.

T Draycott (TD): Conceived idea, designed study, edited manuscript.

M James (MJ): Conceived idea, designed study, wrote and edited manuscript.

Details of ethics approval

Advice was sought from the NRES and an ethical review by an NHS Research Ethics Committee was not required. This study was conducted in accordance with the Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care and Good Clinical Practice. Data storage and protection was in accordance with the research governance framework and the Data Protection Act.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Chris Foy Medical Statistician, Gloucestershire R&D Support Unit for undertaking statistical advice and to the participants for giving their time.

Declaration of interest: All authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. None of the authors have been sponsored by any equipment company, and none hold stocks in any simulation company.

Supplementary material available online

Supplementary Appendix 1 available online at http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/01443615.2015.1060199.