Purpose This article presents a comparison of the effectiveness of traditional clinical education toward skill acquisition goals versus simulation-based medical education (SBME) with deliberate practice (DP). Method This is a quantitative meta-analysis that spans 20 years, 1990 to 2010. A search strategy involving three literature databases, 12 search terms, and four inclusion criteria was used. Four authors independently retrieved and reviewed articles. Main outcome measures were extracted to calculate effect sizes.

/pdf/does-simulation-based-medical-education-with-deliberate-2omk1xvscu.pdf

Does Simulation-Based Medical Education With Deliberate Practice Yield Better Results Than Traditional Clinical Education? A Meta-Analytic Comparative Review of the Evidence

Medical schools and residencies are currently facing a shift in their teaching paradigm. The increasing amount of medical information and research makes it difficult for medical education to stay current in its curriculum. As patients become increasingly concerned that students and residents are "practicing" on them, clinical medicine is becoming focused more on patient safety and quality than on bedside teaching and education. Educators have faced these challenges by restructuring curricula, developing small-group sessions, and increasing self-directed learning and independent research. Nevertheless, a disconnect still exists between the classroom and the clinical environment. Many students feel that they are inadequately trained in history taking, physical examination, diagnosis, and management. Medical simulation has been proposed as a technique to bridge this educational gap. This article reviews the evidence for the utility of simulation in medical education. We conducted a MEDLINE search of original articles and review articles related to simulation in education with key words such as simulation, mannequin simulator, partial task simulator, graduate medical education, undergraduate medical education, and continuing medical education. Articles, related to undergraduate medical education, graduate medical education, and continuing medical education were used in the review. One hundred thirteen articles were included in this review. Simulation-based training was demonstrated to lead to clinical improvement in 2 areas of simulation research. Residents trained on laparoscopic surgery simulators showed improvement in procedural performance in the operating room. The other study showed that residents trained on simulators were more likely to adhere to the advanced cardiac life support protocol than those who received standard training for cardiac arrest patients. In other areas of medical training, simulation has been demonstrated to lead to improvements in medical knowledge, comfort in procedures, and improvements in performance during retesting in simulated scenarios. Simulation has also been shown to be a reliable tool for assessing learners and for teaching topics such as teamwork and communication. Only a few studies have shown direct improvements in clinical outcomes from the use of simulation for training. Multiple studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of simulation in the teaching of basic science and clinical knowledge, procedural skills, teamwork, and communication as well as assessment at the undergraduate and graduate medical education levels. As simulation becomes increasingly prevalent in medical school and resident education, more studies are needed to see if simulation training improves patient outcomes.

The utility of simulation in medical education: what is the evidence?

Objective: To determine whether skills acquired by simulationbased training transfer to the operative setting. Summary Background Data: The fundamental assumption of simulation-based training is that skills acquired in simulated settings are directly transferable to the operating room, yet little evidence has focused on correlating simulated performance with actual surgical performance. Methods: A systematic search strategy was used to retrieve relevant studies. Inclusion of articles was determined using a predetermined protocol, independent assessment by 2 reviewers, and a final consensus decision. Only studies that reported on the use of simulationbased training for surgical skills training, and the transferability of these skills to the operative setting, were included. Results: Ten randomized controlled trials and 1 nonrandomized comparative study were included in this review. In most cases, simulation-based training was in addition to normal training programs. Only 1 study compared simulation-based training with patient-based training. For laparoscopic cholecystectomy and colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy, participants who received simulation-based training before undergoing patient-based assessment performed better than their counterparts who did not receive previous simulation training, but improvement was not demonstrated for all measured parameters. Conclusions: Skills acquired by simulation-based training seem to be transferable to the operative setting. The studies included in this review were of variable quality and did not use comparable simulation-based training methodologies, which limited the strength of the conclusions. More studies are required to strengthen the evidence base and to provide the evidence needed to determine the extent to which simulation should become a part of surgical training programs. (Ann Surg 2008;248: 166‐179)

A systematic review of skills transfer after surgical simulation training.

Background The purpose of this study was to assess whether training to proficiency with the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) simulator would result in improved performance in the operating room (OR). Methods Nineteen junior residents underwent baseline FLS testing and were assessed in the OR using a validated global rating scale (GOALS) during elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Those with GOALS scores ≤15 were randomly assigned to training (n = 9) or control (n = 8) groups. An FLS proficiency-based curriculum was used in the training group. Scoring on FLS and in the OR was repeated after the study period. Evaluators were blinded to randomization status. Results Sixteen residents completed the study. There were no differences in baseline simulator (49.1 ± 17 vs 39.5 ± 16, P = .27) or OR scores (11.3 ± 2.0 vs 12.0 ± 1.8; P = .47). After training, simulator scores were higher in the trained group (95.1 ± 4 vs 60.5 ± 23, P = .004). OR performance improved in the control group by 1.8 to 13.8 ± 2.2 ( P = .04), whereas the trained group improved by 6.1 to 17.4 ± 1.9 ( P = .0005 vs control; P Conclusions This study clearly demonstrates the educational value of FLS simulator training in surgical residency curricula.

Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery simulator training to proficiency improves laparoscopic performance in the operating room—a randomized controlled trial

Background
Standard surgical training has traditionally been one of apprenticeship, where the surgical trainee learns to perform surgery under the supervision of a trained surgeon. This is time-consuming, costly, and of variable effectiveness. Training using a virtual reality simulator is an option to supplement standard training. Virtual reality training improves the technical skills of surgical trainees such as decreased time for suturing and improved accuracy. The clinical impact of virtual reality training is not known.

Objectives
To assess the benefits (increased surgical proficiency and improved patient outcomes) and harms (potentially worse patient outcomes) of supplementary virtual reality training of surgical trainees with limited laparoscopic experience.

Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded until July 2012.

Selection criteria
We included all randomised clinical trials comparing virtual reality training versus other forms of training including box-trainer training, no training, or standard laparoscopic training in surgical trainees with little laparoscopic experience. We also planned to include trials comparing different methods of virtual reality training. We included only trials that assessed the outcomes in people undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Data collection and analysis
Two authors independently identified trials and collected data. We analysed the data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models using Review Manager 5 analysis. For each outcome we calculated the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat analysis.

Main results
We included eight trials covering 109 surgical trainees with limited laparoscopic experience. Of the eight trials, six compared virtual reality versus no supplementary training. One trial compared virtual reality training versus box-trainer training and versus no supplementary training, and one trial compared virtual reality training versus box-trainer training. There were no trials that compared different forms of virtual reality training. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Operating time and operative performance were the only outcomes reported in the trials. The remaining outcomes such as mortality, morbidity, quality of life (the primary outcomes of this review) and hospital stay (a secondary outcome) were not reported.

Virtual reality training versus no supplementary training: The operating time was significantly shorter in the virtual reality group than in the no supplementary training group (3 trials; 49 participants; MD -11.76 minutes; 95% CI -15.23 to -8.30). Two trials that could not be included in the meta-analysis also showed a reduction in operating time (statistically significant in one trial). The numerical values for operating time were not reported in these two trials. The operative performance was significantly better in the virtual reality group than the no supplementary training group using the fixed-effect model (2 trials; 33 participants; SMD 1.65; 95% CI 0.72 to 2.58). The results became non-significant when the random-effects model was used (2 trials; 33 participants; SMD 2.14; 95% CI -1.29 to 5.57). One trial could not be included in the meta-analysis as it did not report the numerical values. The authors stated that the operative performance of virtual reality group was significantly better than the control group.

Virtual reality training versus box-trainer training: The only trial that reported operating time did not report the numerical values. In this trial, the operating time in the virtual reality group was significantly shorter than in the box-trainer group. Of the two trials that reported operative performance, only one trial reported the numerical values. The operative performance was significantly better in the virtual reality group than in the box-trainer group (1 trial; 19 participants; SMD 1.46; 95% CI 0.42 to 2.50). In the other trial that did not report the numerical values, the authors stated that the operative performance in the virtual reality group was significantly better than the box-trainer group.

Authors' conclusions
Virtual reality training appears to decrease the operating time and improve the operative performance of surgical trainees with limited laparoscopic experience when compared with no training or with box-trainer training. However, the impact of this decreased operating time and improvement in operative performance on patients and healthcare funders in terms of improved outcomes or decreased costs is not known. Further well-designed trials at low risk of bias and random errors are necessary. Such trials should assess the impact of virtual reality training on clinical outcomes.

Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery

Background The purpose of this study was to develop a performance-based laparoscopic suturing curriculum using simulators and to test the effectiveness (transferability) of the curriculum. Study design Surgical residents (PGY1 to PGY5, n=17) proficient in basic skills, but with minimal laparoscopic suturing experience, were enrolled in an IRB-approved, randomized controlled protocol. Subjects viewed an instructional video and were pretested on a live porcine laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication model by placing three gastrogastric sutures tied in an intracorporeal fashion. A blinded rater objectively scored each knot based on a previously published formula (600 minus completion time [sec] minus penalties for accuracy and knot integrity errors). Subjects were stratified according to pretest scores and randomized. The trained group practiced on a videotrainer suturing model until an expert-derived proficiency score (512) was achieved on 12 attempts. The control group received no training. Both the trained and control groups were posttested on the porcine Nissen model. Results For the training group, mean time to demonstrate simulator proficiency was 151minutes (range 107 to 224 minutes) and mean number of attempts was 37 (range 24 to 51 attempts). Both the trained and control groups demonstrated significant improvement in overall score from baseline. But the trained group performed significantly better than the control group at posttesting (389 ± 70 versus 217 ± 140, p Conclusions These data suggest that training to a predetermined expert level on a videotrainer suture model provides trainees with skills that translate into improved operative performance. Such curricula should be further developed and implemented as a means of ensuring proficiency.

Simulator Training for Laparoscopic Suturing Using Performance Goals Translates to the Operating Room

Background Numerous protocols for laparoscopic skills training using simulator-based laboratories have proven effective. However, little is known about the availability and uniformity of such facilities. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prevalence, utilization, and costs of skills laboratories currently in use. Methods A survey was mailed to 253 general surgery program directors to determine the perceived value, prevalence, equipment, types of training, supervision, and costs of the labs. Results One hundred sixty-two (64%) programs completed the survey. Eighty-eight percent of responders consider skills labs effective in improving operating room performance; however, only 55% have skills labs. Of 89 programs with skills labs, 99% have videotrainer equipment (mean 3.8 trainers per lab, range 1 to 15); 46% have virtual reality trainer equipment (mean 1.7 trainers per lab, range 1 to 7). Eighty-two percent of programs teach basic skills using a variety of tasks (Rosser/Southwestern stations, MIST-VR, MISTELS, department-created); 96% teach suturing (intracorporeal, extracorporeal, suture devices). On average, residents train 0.8 hours per week (range 0 to 6). Training is mandatory in 55% and supervised in 73% of the programs. The mean development cost was $133,000 (range $300 to $1,000,000). Conclusions While a large majority of program directors consider skills labs important, 45% of programs have no such facilities. Moreover, significant variability of equipment and training practices exist in currently available labs. Strategies are needed for more widespread implementation of skills labs, and standards should be developed to facilitate uniform adoption of validated curricula that reliably maximize training efficiency and educational benefit.

Laparoscopic skills laboratories: current assessment and a call for resident training standards.

The American College of Surgeons/Association of Program Directors in Surgery National Skills Curriculum: Adoption rate, challenges and strategies for effective implementation into surgical residency programs

Background: Numerous protocols for laparoscopic skills training using simulator-based laboratories have proven effective. However, little is known about the availability and uniformity of such facilities. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prevalence, utilization, and costs of skills laboratories currently in use. Methods: A survey was mailed to 253 general surgery program directors to determine the perceived value, prevalence, equipment, types of training, supervision, and costs of the labs. Results: One hundred sixty-two (64%) programs completed the survey. Eighty-eight percent of responders consider skills labs effective in improving operating room performance; however, only 55% have skills labs. Of 89 programs with skills labs, 99% have videotrainer equipment (mean 3.8 trainers per lab, range 1 to 15); 46% have virtual reality trainer equipment (mean 1.7 trainers per lab, range 1 to 7). Eighty-two percent of programs teach basic skills using a variety of tasks (Rosser/Southwestern stations, MIST-VR, MISTELS, departmentcreated); 96% teach suturing (intracorporeal, extracorporeal, suture devices). On average, residents train 0.8 hours per week (range 0 to 6). Training is mandatory in 55% and supervised in 73% of the programs. The mean development cost was $133,000 (range $300 to $1,000,000). Conclusions: While a large majority of program directors consider skills labs important, 45% of programs have no such facilities. Moreover, significant variability of equipment and training practices exist in currently available labs. Strategies are needed for more widespread implementation of skills labs, and standards should be developed to facilitate uniform adoption of validated curricula that reliably maximize training efficiency and educational benefit. © 2006 Excerpta Medica Inc. All rights reserved.

Dimitris Stefanidis

Papers

Simulator Training for Laparoscopic Suturing Using Performance Goals Translates to the Operating Room

Laparoscopic skills laboratories: current assessment and a call for resident training standards.

The American College of Surgeons/Association of Program Directors in Surgery National Skills Curriculum: Adoption rate, challenges and strategies for effective implementation into surgical residency programs

Association for Surgical Education Laparoscopic skills laboratories: current assessment and a call for resident training standards

196: Limited feedback and video tutorials optimize learning and resource utilization during laparoscopic simulator training