Mp73-16 National Interest and Utilization of Surgical Simulation in Urologic Surgery Residency Programs

You have accessJournal of UrologySurgical Technology & Simulation: Training & Skills Assessment (MP73)1 May 2024MP73-16 NATIONAL INTEREST AND UTILIZATION OF SURGICAL SIMULATION IN UROLOGIC SURGERY RESIDENCY PROGRAMS Avi Sura, Olivia Kola, Nelson Stone, and Evan Kovac Avi SuraAvi Sura , Olivia KolaOlivia Kola , Nelson StoneNelson Stone , and Evan KovacEvan Kovac View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001009564.26544.1c.16AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Surgical simulation (SS) is a rapidly evolving and increasingly important tool for the training of medical students and residents. Simulation-based skills training can allow urological trainees to develop and refine their expertise prior to performing a procedure on a patient, thereby decreasing surgical errors and operative time, both of which should also decrease hospital costs. We conducted a survey to better our understanding of the current national interest and utilization of SS tools within urology residency programs. METHODS: An online survey was disseminated via email to 148 urology residency program directors (PDs) to gauge the utilization of SS training in their respective programs. Domains included presence of a formal SS program, dedicated SS time, types of SS cases, usage of low- and high-fidelity SS materials, budgetary constraints, level of desire for increased SS-related resources, and ability to gather residents for dedicated SS time. RESULTS: In total, 33 (22%) PDs responded, of which 31 (94%) reported familiarity with SS models and 29 (88%) reported current SS within their programs. Simulation was most likely to be performed quarterly (11 programs), followed by monthly (7 programs). 23 (70%) and 21 (64%) programs reported robotic and endoscopic SS, respectively. Simulated organ training and low fidelity bench models were the most commonly available SS tools for residents. 28 (85%) PDs believed that their residents already do or would benefit from training on simulated tissue (hydrogel) models. Budgets for SS ranged from $0-$50,000, with 3 programs indicating industry-sponsorship, and 25 (76%) programs expressing desire for an increase in funding and resources. 25 (76%) PDs stated that their residents rotate amongst multiple sites and 27 (82%) PDs found it challenging to bring residents together for SS training. Finally, 18 (55%) PDs indicated that the ability to conduct remote SS sessions would improve training efficiency and overall education. CONCLUSIONS: SS is already implemented in most of the training programs who responded to the survey, with the majority of SS dedicated to robotic and endoscopic procedures. PDs desire increased funding for SS and believe the use of simulated tissue models would benefit resident training, improve patient safety, and decrease hospital costs. Most programs are spread across multiple facilities and PDs report difficulty in gathering residents together for SS training events. Implementing virtual or augmented reality remote SS platforms could improve access to training for dispersed residents. Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e1188 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Avi Sura More articles by this author Olivia Kola More articles by this author Nelson Stone More articles by this author Evan Kovac More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...