A Multi-Institutional Needs Assessment in the Development of a Robotic Surgery Curriculum: Perceptions From Resident and Faculty Surgeons

BACKGROUND: The growing adoption of robotic -assisted surgery mandates residents must acquire robotic skills. No standardized curriculum for robotic surgery exists. Therefore, programs have developed their own curricula, which are often unstructured and based on resource availability. With this strategy programs may not adhere to scholarly approaches in curriculum develop-ment. We aimed to obtain a multi-institutional needs assessment to address training needs and identify integral components of a formalized robotic surgery curriculum.METHODS: A 10-question survey was distributed to gen-eral surgery residents. A separate 7-question survey was sent to robotic faculty surgeons at 3 institutions. Survey questions queried demographics, opinions regarding robotic training, proficiency definitions, and identifica-tion of procedures and instructional strategies for a cur-riculum. Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test were performed to compare responses amongst resi-dents and faculty. Spearman's correlation was used to identify relationships between experience or post -gradu-ate year (PGY) with response selection.RESULTS: Both residents and faculty believed robotic training should start in the PGY1 (55.1% vs 52%; p = 0.58). Faculty recognized robotic training to be more important compared to residents (84% vs 58.1%; p < 0.05). Both groups considered a minimum of 21 to 40 robotic cases to be sufficient exposure during training (p = 0.30). Cholecystectomy (82.4% vs 72%; p = 0.261), ventral hernia repair (89.2% vs 88%; p = 1.0), inguinal hernia repair (91.9% vs 92%; p = 1.0), and right colectomy (83.8% vs 80%; p = 0.7) were considered to be the most appropriate robotic procedures during train-ing. Both groups concurred that bedside (91.9% vs 100%; p = 0.33) and console skills training (97.3% vs 100%; p = 1.0), small group simulation (94.6% vs 72% p = 0.005), and independent practice (87.8% vs 92% p = 0.73), were instructional strategies vital to a curricu-lum. Faculty considered online didactic modules (96% vs 59.5%; p < 0.05) to be more important, whereas resi-dents favored small group experiences for fundamental skills (94.6% vs. 72%; p < 0.05) and procedure-based simulation (96% vs 64%; p < 0.05).CONCLUSIONS: Our targeted needs assessment identi-fied requisite components of a robotics curriculum, which are feasible and accepted by both residents and faculty. Medical educators can use this as a resource to develop a formal robotics training curriculum. ( J Surg Ed 80:93-101. (c) 2022 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)