Simulation-based training in urology residency programmes in the USA: Results of a nationwide survey
Objective: To evaluate the current usage of simulation in urological education in the USA and the barriers to incorporating a simulation-based educational curriculum, as the shift towards competency-based medical education has necessitated the introduction of simulation for training and assessing bo...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Taylor & Francis Group
2018
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/49cc922e8e014e1eaf1b96cddbda6fac |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Objective: To evaluate the current usage of simulation in urological education in the USA and the barriers to incorporating a simulation-based educational curriculum, as the shift towards competency-based medical education has necessitated the introduction of simulation for training and assessing both non-technical and technical skills. Materials and methods: Residency programme directors at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited urology training programmes in the USA were invited to respond to an anonymous electronic survey. The study evaluated the programme directors’ experiences and opinions for the current usage of existing urology simulators. The survey also elicited receptiveness and the barriers for incorporating simulation-based training curricula within urology training programmes. Results: In all, 43 completed surveys were received (35% response rate). Amongst responders, 97% (42/43) reported having access to a simulation education centre, and 60% (25/42) have incorporated simulation into their curriculum. A total of 87% (37/43) agreed that there is a role for a standardised simulator training curriculum, and 75% (30/40) agreed that simulators would improve operating room performance. A total of 64% (27/42) agreed that cost was a limiting factor, 12% (5/42) agreed on the cost-effectiveness of simulators, 35% (17/41) agreed there was an increased need for simulator education within work-hour limitations, and 38% (16/42) agreed a simulation programme would reduce patient risks and complications. Conclusions: The majority of urology programme directors consider that there is a role for incorporating a simulation-based curriculum into urology training. Barriers to implementation include cost burden, need for constant technology updates, need for advanced planning, and willingness of faculty to participate in administration. Keywords: Computer simulation, Education, Residency, Curriculum |
|---|