Modified Delphi study reveals consensus on a national robotic surgery curriculum for UK residents, indicating the necessity of structured phased training and institutional funding.
Robotic-assisted surgery is now established across multiple surgical specialties in the United Kingdom, yet training for surgical residents remains variable, resource-dependent, and insufficiently standardised at national level. This study sought multispecialty expert consensus on the essential components of a national robotic surgery training curriculum for UK surgical residents. A four-round modified Delphi study was conducted between September and December 2025 under the RaDaR network of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Round 1 used open-ended questionnaires with independent dual-coder thematic analysis; Round 2 was a hybrid face-to-face and online meeting with live anonymous electronic voting; Rounds 3 and 4 were online questionnaires addressing statements not yet reaching the pre-defined consensus threshold of 70% agreement or greater. The panel comprised consultant surgeons, surgical trainees, curriculum and training authorities, and industry representatives with deliberately bounded, non-clinical input. 25 participants completed the final round. Of 26 statements, 22 (84%) reached consensus. A three-tier framework of device, basic skills, and procedural training was endorsed, with device training introduced from Phase 1 (76%), basic skills training in Phases 1–2 (96%), and procedural training in Phases 2–3 (88%). Competency assessment integrated within the Annual Review of Competence Progression was supported (84%), alongside multi-source funding; trainee self-funding was not endorsed. This consensus offers a pragmatic foundation for standardising robotic surgery training for UK residents, contingent on coordinated investment in platform access, simulation infrastructure, and faculty development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Francis et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: