Robotics training program

Evaluation of the satisfaction and the factors that influence success of skills training in a resident robotics curriculum

Steven M. Lucas, David A. Gilley, Shreyas S. Joshi, Thomas Gardner, Chandru Sundaram

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: We present our experience of training residents in a weekend robotic training program to assess its effectiveness and perceived usefulness. Methods: Bimonthly training sessions were arranged such that residents could sign up for hour-long, weekend training sessions. They are required to complete four training sessions. Five tasks were scored for time and accuracy: Peg-Board, checkerboard, string running, pattern cutting, and suturing. Participants completed surveys (5-point Likert scale) regarding program utility, ease of attendance, and interest in future weekend training sessions. Results: Mean number of trials completed by 19 residents was >4, and 16 completed the trials within an average of 13.7±8.1mos. Significant improvements (P<0.05) were seen in final trials for Peg-Board accuracy (95.8% vs 79.0%), checkerboard deviation (4.8% vs 18.2%), and time (293s vs 404s), pattern-cutting time (257s vs 399s), and suture time (203s vs 305s). Time to previous session correlated with relative improvement in Peg-Board and pattern-cutting time (r=0.300 and 0.277, P=0.021 and 0.041), but no specific training interval was predictive of improvement. Residents found the course easy to attend (3.6), noted skills improvement (4.1), and found it useful (4.0). Conclusion: Training in the weekend sessions improved performance of basic tasks on the robot. Training interval had a modest effect on some exercises and may be more important for difficult tasks. This training program is a useful supplement to resident training and would be easy to implement in most programs.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1669-1674
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Endourology
Volume25
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2011

Fingerprint

Program Evaluation
Robotics
Curriculum
Education
Task Performance and Analysis
Sutures

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Robotics training program : Evaluation of the satisfaction and the factors that influence success of skills training in a resident robotics curriculum. / Lucas, Steven M.; Gilley, David A.; Joshi, Shreyas S.; Gardner, Thomas; Sundaram, Chandru.

In: Journal of Endourology, Vol. 25, No. 10, 01.10.2011, p. 1669-1674.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a6f1f4b8775b4ce49e96138404ac2713,
title = "Robotics training program: Evaluation of the satisfaction and the factors that influence success of skills training in a resident robotics curriculum",
abstract = "Purpose: We present our experience of training residents in a weekend robotic training program to assess its effectiveness and perceived usefulness. Methods: Bimonthly training sessions were arranged such that residents could sign up for hour-long, weekend training sessions. They are required to complete four training sessions. Five tasks were scored for time and accuracy: Peg-Board, checkerboard, string running, pattern cutting, and suturing. Participants completed surveys (5-point Likert scale) regarding program utility, ease of attendance, and interest in future weekend training sessions. Results: Mean number of trials completed by 19 residents was >4, and 16 completed the trials within an average of 13.7±8.1mos. Significant improvements (P<0.05) were seen in final trials for Peg-Board accuracy (95.8{\%} vs 79.0{\%}), checkerboard deviation (4.8{\%} vs 18.2{\%}), and time (293s vs 404s), pattern-cutting time (257s vs 399s), and suture time (203s vs 305s). Time to previous session correlated with relative improvement in Peg-Board and pattern-cutting time (r=0.300 and 0.277, P=0.021 and 0.041), but no specific training interval was predictive of improvement. Residents found the course easy to attend (3.6), noted skills improvement (4.1), and found it useful (4.0). Conclusion: Training in the weekend sessions improved performance of basic tasks on the robot. Training interval had a modest effect on some exercises and may be more important for difficult tasks. This training program is a useful supplement to resident training and would be easy to implement in most programs.",
author = "Lucas, {Steven M.} and Gilley, {David A.} and Joshi, {Shreyas S.} and Thomas Gardner and Chandru Sundaram",
year = "2011",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1089/end.2010.0713",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "1669--1674",
journal = "Journal of Endourology",
issn = "0892-7790",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Robotics training program

T2 - Evaluation of the satisfaction and the factors that influence success of skills training in a resident robotics curriculum

AU - Lucas, Steven M.

AU - Gilley, David A.

AU - Joshi, Shreyas S.

AU - Gardner, Thomas

AU - Sundaram, Chandru

PY - 2011/10/1

Y1 - 2011/10/1

N2 - Purpose: We present our experience of training residents in a weekend robotic training program to assess its effectiveness and perceived usefulness. Methods: Bimonthly training sessions were arranged such that residents could sign up for hour-long, weekend training sessions. They are required to complete four training sessions. Five tasks were scored for time and accuracy: Peg-Board, checkerboard, string running, pattern cutting, and suturing. Participants completed surveys (5-point Likert scale) regarding program utility, ease of attendance, and interest in future weekend training sessions. Results: Mean number of trials completed by 19 residents was >4, and 16 completed the trials within an average of 13.7±8.1mos. Significant improvements (P<0.05) were seen in final trials for Peg-Board accuracy (95.8% vs 79.0%), checkerboard deviation (4.8% vs 18.2%), and time (293s vs 404s), pattern-cutting time (257s vs 399s), and suture time (203s vs 305s). Time to previous session correlated with relative improvement in Peg-Board and pattern-cutting time (r=0.300 and 0.277, P=0.021 and 0.041), but no specific training interval was predictive of improvement. Residents found the course easy to attend (3.6), noted skills improvement (4.1), and found it useful (4.0). Conclusion: Training in the weekend sessions improved performance of basic tasks on the robot. Training interval had a modest effect on some exercises and may be more important for difficult tasks. This training program is a useful supplement to resident training and would be easy to implement in most programs.

AB - Purpose: We present our experience of training residents in a weekend robotic training program to assess its effectiveness and perceived usefulness. Methods: Bimonthly training sessions were arranged such that residents could sign up for hour-long, weekend training sessions. They are required to complete four training sessions. Five tasks were scored for time and accuracy: Peg-Board, checkerboard, string running, pattern cutting, and suturing. Participants completed surveys (5-point Likert scale) regarding program utility, ease of attendance, and interest in future weekend training sessions. Results: Mean number of trials completed by 19 residents was >4, and 16 completed the trials within an average of 13.7±8.1mos. Significant improvements (P<0.05) were seen in final trials for Peg-Board accuracy (95.8% vs 79.0%), checkerboard deviation (4.8% vs 18.2%), and time (293s vs 404s), pattern-cutting time (257s vs 399s), and suture time (203s vs 305s). Time to previous session correlated with relative improvement in Peg-Board and pattern-cutting time (r=0.300 and 0.277, P=0.021 and 0.041), but no specific training interval was predictive of improvement. Residents found the course easy to attend (3.6), noted skills improvement (4.1), and found it useful (4.0). Conclusion: Training in the weekend sessions improved performance of basic tasks on the robot. Training interval had a modest effect on some exercises and may be more important for difficult tasks. This training program is a useful supplement to resident training and would be easy to implement in most programs.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80053644692&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80053644692&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/end.2010.0713

DO - 10.1089/end.2010.0713

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 1669

EP - 1674

JO - Journal of Endourology

JF - Journal of Endourology

SN - 0892-7790

IS - 10

ER -