Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVES: • To evaluate the benefit of a skills laboratory based training programme to urology resident training by end-user assessment. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: • All participants in a urological skills workshop programme conducted at the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons in Melbourne, Australia, between 2004 and 2009 were included. • This was a retrospective review using a structured questionnaire. • Topics regarding course organization, content, delivery and relevance to clinical practice were examined. • Free-text entry responses allowed participants to elaborate on specific points as appropriate. RESULTS: • During the study period, 35 individual workshops were conducted. • In all, 41 of 43 eligible participants completed the survey for a response rate of 95%. • Overall, 26 (63%) found the experience valuable, interesting and useful. • Of the remainder (37%), four (10%) found it interesting but not useful to training, five (12%) found it useful and a good idea but not well conducted, and two (5%) found it neither interesting nor useful for training. • Workshop success was intimately related to the quality of the simulator or model used: highly rated workshops consistently used models that were 'realistic' and 'life-like', while poorly rated workshops were associated with models considered 'impossible' and 'not tested'. CONCLUSIONS: • The use of skills laboratory based workshops can enhance the surgical training of urology residents, at least as assessed by the end-users themselves. • However, closer attention to the selection and use of properly tested and validated models may maximize the educational opportunity. • Translational research prospectively examining the impact of workshops on live patient surgery and outcomes is still required.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Grills et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: