Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Sections
    • Collections
  • Podcasts
  • Author Info
    • Overview for authors
    • Publication fees
    • Forms
    • Editorial policies
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
  • Careers
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CMAJ Open
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CJS
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CMAJ Open
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CJS

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Sections
    • Collections
  • Podcasts
  • Author Info
    • Overview for authors
    • Publication fees
    • Forms
    • Editorial policies
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
  • Careers
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact
  • Subscribe to our alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow CJS on Twitter
Discussions in Surgery
Open Access

Curriculum matrix development for a hepato-pancreato-biliary robotic surgery fellowship

Maria Baimas-George, Michael Watson, John Martinie and Dionisios Vrochides
CAN J SURG November 01, 2021 64 (6) E657-E662; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.002620
Maria Baimas-George
From the Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Watson
From the Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John Martinie
From the Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dionisios Vrochides
From the Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Summary

Robotic surgery is being increasingly used for complex benign and malignant hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) cases. As use of robotics increases, fellowships to excel in complex robotic procedures will be sought after. With this dedicated training, attending surgeon positions can be obtained that can incorporate and teach this skill set. Unfortunately, there are no evidence-based approaches for constructing a curriculum for an HPB robotic surgery fellowship. This paper describes a technique to develop a structured curriculum to ensure competence and fulfil the learning and practice needs for robotic HPB fellows.

The robotic platform in hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) disease is starting to gain popularity owing to the advantages it technically can offer over conventional and open techniques. Robotic surgery overcomes laparoscopic limitations through optical magnification, 3-D depth perception, augmented instrument articulation, and greater precision with suture targeting.1 These benefits have brought robotic surgery to the forefront as an attractive and, more importantly, inclusive opportunity for a minimally invasive approach to complex and benign HPB disease. With studies correlating technical performance and surgeon volume with postoperative outcomes, the importance of effective training is paramount.2,3 Unfortunately, even new graduates are lacking comfort and skill in the robotic arena owing to considerable disparities across education and technical experience of robotic exposure during training. While there have been improvements over the last decade in regards to resident participation in robotic cases, formal curricula remain variable and lacking.4,5 And, unfortunately, these curricula often limit participation to mainly observation, resulting in inexperienced graduates without the appropriate skill set to operate safely while unaccompanied.6 As a consequence, skill development in this area among attending surgeons depends on the needs of the professional community and surgical societies. As such, a role for robotic fellowships has emerged for comprehensive and formalized training. With no current evidence-based approaches for constructing a curriculum for an HPB robotic surgery fellowship, we describe here our technique in creating a structured curriculum at the Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health.

Our HPB robotic surgery fellowship is a 12-month commitment that lies between a postgraduate education level and continuing professional development. As such, the curriculum is customized to meet individual needs and is designed to ensure fellows achieve a minimum level of competence, professionalism and patient safety7 (Table 1). Thus, there are 2 proposed pathways: pure clinical, and clinical and research.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Contextual information about the HPB robotic surgery fellowship curriculum

The pathway model addresses content overload and allows each to concentrate on modules or competencies that may be more important in future practice. The essential technical competencies are incorporated into 8 core modules that are required for both pathways. The modules are based on the adult learning theory that emphasizes problem-based learning and active trainee participation.8 Over the last several decades, medical education has shifted from teaching to learning owing to this theory; however, it is not only learning theories that influence a curriculum design, especially on a postgraduate level.9 The trainee should also be able to identify and solve clinical problems in the real world with minimal to no supervision. Consequently, the medical curriculum at a postgraduate level should be problem-based and integrate knowledge, skills, and attitudes. In a word, it should be made for practice.10 Thus, each of these proposed modules follow the principles of adult learning theory and are problem-based.

The curriculum begins with 4 core modules that follow a spiral model (Table 2).3 Module 1 involves an introduction to robotics, discussing technology and equipment to allow for efficient use and appropriate troubleshooting. A robotic skill simulator is used to familiarize the trainees, and Module 2 follows with dry laboratory simulation to practise set-up basics to suturing anastomoses. The simulations are recorded to assess learning curves and areas for improvement. The next 3 modules focus on completion of simple index procedures, such as cholecystectomies, or core parts of larger complex cases while simultaneously advancing work in the dry laboratory (Figure 1). As competence increases, more complex procedures, such as pancreaticoduodenectomies and major hepatectomies, are taught in the subsequent core modules. After completion of the core modules, an additional 4 elective modules are required. Vertical integration (between basic and clinical science) is achieved within each module and, depending on caseload, bedside modules (3, 5 and 7) and console modules (4, 6, 8, 9 and 10) may run in parallel.11

Fig. 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1

Index robotic hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgical procedures performed at Carolinas Medical Center. CCY = cholecystectomy; LN = lymph node.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

The HPB robotic surgery fellowship curriculum matrix aligning intended learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities and assessments

This curriculum focuses primarily on incorporation and importance of the cornerstone of intended learning outcomes (ILO), which is competence in performing hepatic, pancreatic and biliary operations. However, other important objectives, such as problem solving, researching, socialization and professionalism, are also incorporated and are considered equally important. These inform fellows of what they should achieve, guide teachers to what they should teach, and clarify assessment processes. All modules are structured to align each ILO with an appropriate teaching/learning activity and a meaningful assessment process.

As our intention is to produce highly specialized HPB surgeons who practise in a tertiary level hospital, teaching and learning activities include substantial operative exposure and in-house and outpatient treatment formulations. Each module, along with the operative objectives, focuses on appropriately planning and presenting a procedure. As a variety of teaching methods are needed for effective learning, every attempt was made to include more than 1 teaching/learning activity for each desired ILO. This is especially true for the core modules, where 67% of the ILOs (12 of 18) are aligned to more than 1 activity; in the elective modules, 27% of the ILOs (12 of 44) are aligned to more than 1 activity.

Evaluation is incorporated into the curriculum from the beginning (Figure 2). Many assessment tools are used to encompass data, analysis, judgments and interventions.12 The evaluation plan utilizes criteria provided by the major HPB surgery governing bodies. The focus is shifted mainly to the first (learner’s satisfaction), second (knowledge acquisition) and third (knowledge implementation) levels of evaluation. This promotes habits of improvement by engaging fellows with challenging clinical cases and via quality-improvement and patient-safety initiatives. It supports formation of professional identity by offering feedback, reflective opportunities and multi-aspect assessments.13

Fig. 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2

Template for construction of a cumulative summary (CUSUM) learning curve. ERCP = endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; N/A = not applicable; PD = pancreatic duct.

In concert with the competence-based education idea, the cornerstone ILOs aim to produce highly specialized surgeons who are able to perform simple and complex HPB operations.14 To this effect, all core modules contain an ILO described by the phrase “perform an operation.” The HPB surgery governing bodies define the key steps of all relevant operative procedures and suggest the minimum number of each procedure that should be performed to obtain the competence required to become an independent performer. However, these standards exist only for open classic laparoscopic HPB procedures. The learning curves for performing index robotic HPB surgical procedures are largely unknown and could vary substantially from trainee to trainee. For that reason, we incorporated cumulative summation (CUSUM) to plot the learning curve of each procedure for each individual trainee (Figure 2).15 Adopting ILOs assessed by CUSUM analysis might require less time to achieve competence.16 In addition, this type of individualized analysis allows identification of specific deficiencies in technical performance of each trainee, leading to suitable interventions for improvement. The curriculum employs both vertical and horizontal integration of disciplines to link theory to practice and to provide a “real” learning environment. The combination of core with various elective modules provides a comprehensive approach to building an HPB robotic surgery personality — an endeavour that requires interprofessional collaboration.

The emergence of robotic surgery into general and specialized surgical practices, including HPB surgery, continues to expand and holds considerable promise for future development. However, residencies and HPB fellowships provide an array of exposure to robotic surgery, resulting in inconsistent technique and ability among HPB surgeons. Often, the only structured training received is through the fundamentals of robotic surgery, designed to deliver only basic knowledge and skill. Thus, the training and exposure required to perform complex procedures is often lacking and, as such, it is important that robotic fellowships be created to allow for an appropriate transition of autonomy and acquisition of a safe and effective skill set. Our curriculum was developed and implemented for this exact purpose. We encourage any individuals who seek to widely incorporate robotics into their practice to seek out or create similar curricula that can provide the appropriate problem-based learning and complex skill acquisition.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

  • Contributors: All authors contributed substantially to the conception, writing and revision of this article and approved the final version for publication.

  • Accepted February 4, 2021.

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original publication is properly cited, the use is noncommercial (i.e., research or educational use), and no modifications or adaptations are made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

References

  1. ↵
    1. Bodner J,
    2. Augustin F,
    3. Wykypiel H,
    4. et al
    . The da Vinci robotic system for general surgical applications: a critical interim appraisal. Swiss Med Wkly 2005;135:674–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Hogg ME,
    2. Zenati M,
    3. Novak S,
    4. et al
    . Grading of surgeon technical performance predicts postoperative pancreatic fistula for pancreaticoduodenectomy independent of patient-related variables. Ann Surg 2016;264:482–91.
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Birkmeyer JD,
    2. Stukel TA,
    3. Siewers AE,
    4. et al
    . Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003; 349:2117–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Farivar BS,
    2. Flannagan M,
    3. Leitman IM
    . General surgery residents’ perception of robot-assisted procedures during surgical training. J Surg Educ 2015;72:235–42.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Tom CM,
    2. Maciel JD,
    3. Korn A,
    4. et al
    . A survey of robotic surgery training curricula in general surgery residency programs: How close are we to a standardized curriculum? Am J Surg 2019;217:256–60.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Green CA,
    2. Chern H,
    3. O’Sullivan PS
    . Current robotic curricula for surgery residents: a need for additional cognitive and psychomotor focus. Am J Surg 2018;215:277–81.
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Grant JCE,
    2. Jackson G
    . The Good CPD Guide. Sutton, Surrey: Reed Business Information; 1999.
  8. ↵
    1. Harden RM
    . Outcome-based education: the future is today. Med Teach 2007;29:625–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Nicol D
    . Research on Learning and Higher Education Teaching. UCoSDA Briefing Paper 45. Sheffield: Universities and Colleges Staff Development Agency; 1997.
  10. ↵
    1. Fish DC
    . Continuing medical education: developing a curricula for practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2005.
  11. ↵
    1. Dornan T,
    2. Littlewood S,
    3. Margolis SA,
    4. et al
    . How can experience in clinical and community settings contribute to early medical education? A BEME systematic review. Med Teach 2006;28:3–18.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Owen J,
    2. Grealish L
    . Clinical education delivery–a collaborative, shared governance model provides a framework for planning, implementation and evaluation. Collegian 2006;13:15–21.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Hodges BD,
    2. Ginsburg S,
    3. Cruess R,
    4. et al
    . Assessment of professionalism: recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 Conference. Med Teach 2011;33:354–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Harden RM,
    2. Davis MH,
    3. Crosby JR
    . The new Dundee medical curriculum: a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts. Med Educ 1997;31:264–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Grunkemeier GL,
    2. Wu YX,
    3. Furnary AP
    . Cumulative sum techniques for assessing surgical results. Ann Thorac Surg 2003;76:663–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Long DM
    . Competency-based residency training: the next advance in graduate medical education. Acad Med 2000;75:1178–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Journal of Surgery: 64 (6)
CAN J SURG
Vol. 64, Issue 6
21 Dec 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CJS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Curriculum matrix development for a hepato-pancreato-biliary robotic surgery fellowship
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CJS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CJS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Curriculum matrix development for a hepato-pancreato-biliary robotic surgery fellowship
Maria Baimas-George, Michael Watson, John Martinie, Dionisios Vrochides
CAN J SURG Nov 2021, 64 (6) E657-E662; DOI: 10.1503/cjs.002620

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Curriculum matrix development for a hepato-pancreato-biliary robotic surgery fellowship
Maria Baimas-George, Michael Watson, John Martinie, Dionisios Vrochides
CAN J SURG Nov 2021, 64 (6) E657-E662; DOI: 10.1503/cjs.002620
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Alerts
  • RSS

Authors & Reviewers

  • Overview for Authors
  • Publication Fees
  • Forms
  • Editorial Policies
  • Submit a manuscript

About

  • General Information
  • Staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising
  • Reprints
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 2291-0026

All editorial matter in CJS represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected].

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

 

Powered by HighWire