Introduction and objectives: Standardization of hands-on training (HoT) has profoundly impacted the educational field in the last decade. To provide quality training sessions on a global scale, the European School of Urology Training group developed a teaching guide for tutors in 2015. Our study aims to understand whether this guide alone can provide information enough to match the performance improvement guaranteed by an expert tutor. Material and methods: 4 randomized groups of participants underwent HoT sessions with different teaching modalities: an expert surgeon (group 1), an expert E-BLUS tutor (group 2), E-BLUS guide alone (group 3), no tutor (group 4). Groups 1 and 2 were respectively provided with two different tutors to avoid biases related to personal tutor ability. Along the training session, each participant could perform five trials on two E-BLUS tasks: Peg transfer and Knot tying. During trials 1 and 5, completion time and number of errors were recorded for analysis with Pi-score algorithm. The average per-group Pi-scores were then compared to measure different performance improvement results. Results: 60 participants from Italy were enrolled and randomized into four groups of 15. Pi-scores recorded on Peg transfer task were 24,6 (group 1), 26,4 (group 2), 42,2 (group 3), 11,7 (group 4). Pi-scores recorded on Knot tying task were 33,2 (group 1), 31,3 (group 2), 37,5 (group 3), 18,6 (group 4). Conclusion: Compared to a human tutor, standardized teaching with the EBLUS guide may produce similar performance improvement. This evidence opens doors to automated teaching and to several novelties in hands-on training.

Evaluation of the “Teaching Guide for Basic Laparoscopic Skills” as a stand-alone educational tool for hands-on training sessions: a pilot study

Morgia G.;Castelli T.;Cimino S.;Russo G.;
2020-01-01

Abstract

Introduction and objectives: Standardization of hands-on training (HoT) has profoundly impacted the educational field in the last decade. To provide quality training sessions on a global scale, the European School of Urology Training group developed a teaching guide for tutors in 2015. Our study aims to understand whether this guide alone can provide information enough to match the performance improvement guaranteed by an expert tutor. Material and methods: 4 randomized groups of participants underwent HoT sessions with different teaching modalities: an expert surgeon (group 1), an expert E-BLUS tutor (group 2), E-BLUS guide alone (group 3), no tutor (group 4). Groups 1 and 2 were respectively provided with two different tutors to avoid biases related to personal tutor ability. Along the training session, each participant could perform five trials on two E-BLUS tasks: Peg transfer and Knot tying. During trials 1 and 5, completion time and number of errors were recorded for analysis with Pi-score algorithm. The average per-group Pi-scores were then compared to measure different performance improvement results. Results: 60 participants from Italy were enrolled and randomized into four groups of 15. Pi-scores recorded on Peg transfer task were 24,6 (group 1), 26,4 (group 2), 42,2 (group 3), 11,7 (group 4). Pi-scores recorded on Knot tying task were 33,2 (group 1), 31,3 (group 2), 37,5 (group 3), 18,6 (group 4). Conclusion: Compared to a human tutor, standardized teaching with the EBLUS guide may produce similar performance improvement. This evidence opens doors to automated teaching and to several novelties in hands-on training.
2020
EBLUS
Education
Hands-on training
Laparoscopy
Standardization
Teaching
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Evaluation of the Teaching Guide for Basic Laparoscopic Skills.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 621.14 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
621.14 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11769/490203
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 3
social impact