Download PDF
Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2021; 34(03): 186-193
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1722765
Review Article

Proctorship in Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery

Assad Zahid
1   St Mark's Hospital, London, United Kingdom
2   University of Sydney, Australia
,
Danilo Miskovic
1   St Mark's Hospital, London, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Teaching an established surgeon in a novel technique by a colleague who has acquired a level of expertise is often referred to as “proctoring” or “precepting.” Surgical preceptorships can be defined as supervised teaching programs, whereby individual or groups of surgeons (proctors) experienced in a certain technique support a colleague who wants to adopt this technique (sometimes referred to as “delegates” or “preceptees”). Preceptorship programs really focus on a specific technique, technology, or skill which is required to broaden, complement, or transform an established surgeon's practice.

Within colorectal surgery, in the past 30 years, there is been an evolution of interventional options including open, laparoscopic, robotic, and endoscopic procedures. With each new emerging technology and technique, safe and effective uptake by established surgeons is best been attained by a period of proctorship by an experienced colleague. Formalizing this has been facilitated largely through industry support. There, however, remains a considerable chasm when it comes to standardization, quality control, and jurisprudence.

This article aims to describe the requirements for a contemporary proctorship program, to examine instruments of quality control, and how to improve effectiveness.

Keywords

proctorship - preceptorship - colorectal surgery - competency - minimally invasive


Publication History

Article published online:
29 March 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Zorn KC, Gautam G, Shalhav AL. et al; Members of the Society of Urologic Robotic Surgeons. Training, credentialing, proctoring and medicolegal risks of robotic urological surgery: recommendations of the society of urologic robotic surgeons. J Urol 2009; 182 (03) 1126-1132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Prinsloo T, Van Deventer JP. Using the Gartner Hype Cycle to Evaluate the Adoption of Emerging Technology Trends in Higher Education – 2013 to 2016. In: Emerging Technologies for Education. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017: 49-57 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science; vol. 10676)
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Soot SJ, Eshraghi N, Farahmand M, Sheppard BC, Deveney CW. Transition from open to laparoscopic fundoplication: the learning curve. Arch Surg 1999; 134 (03) 278-281 , discussion 282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Miskovic D, Wyles SM, Carter F, Coleman MG, Hanna GB. Development, validation and implementation of a monitoring tool for training in laparoscopic colorectal surgery in the English National Training Program. Surg Endosc 2011; 25 (04) 1136-1142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Moran MR. The learning curve for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Arch Surg 1997; 132 (08) 931-931 , author reply 931–932
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Mackenzie H, Dixon AR. Proficiency gain curve and predictors of outcome for laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. Surgery 2014; 156 (01) 158-167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Zahid A, Hong J, Young CJ. Coaching experts: applications to surgeons and continuing professional development. Surg Innov 2018; 25 (01) 77-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Greenberg CC, Klingensmith ME. The continuum of coaching: opportunities for surgical improvement at all levels. Ann Surg 2015; 262 (02) 217-219
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Schwellnus H, Carnahan H. Peer-coaching with health care professionals: what is the current status of the literature and what are the key components necessary in peer-coaching? A scoping review. Med Teach 2014; 36 (01) 38-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ericsson KA. Acquisition and maintenance of medical expertise. Academic medicine. Royal Australasian Coll Surg 2015; 90 (11) 1471-1486
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Ericsson KA, Smith J. (Eds.). Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits. Cambridge University Press; 1991
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Zahid A, Hong J, Young CJ. Surgical supervisor feedback affects performance: a blinded randomized study. Cureus 2017; 9 (05) e1276
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Münster T, Stosch C, Hindrichs N, Franklin J, Matthes J. Peyton's 4-Steps-Approach in comparison: medium-term effects on learning external chest compression - a pilot study. GMS J Med Educ 2016; 33 (04) Doc60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Coleman M. Lapco: national training programme for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The Bulletin of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Royal Coll Surg Engl 2015; 91 (08) 274-275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Coleman MG, Hanna GB, Colorectal RK. The National Training Programme for laparoscopic colorectal surgery in England: a new training paradigm. Wiley Online Library; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Coleman M, Francis N. Training the trainer in laparoscopic surgery. In: Training in Minimal Access Surgery. London: Springer, London; 2015: 183-195
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Abboudi M, Ahmed K, Kirby R, Khan MS, Dasgupta P, Challacombe B. Mentorship programmes for laparoscopic and robotic urology. BJU Int 2011; 107 (12) 1869-1871
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Di Domenico SI, Ryan RM. The emerging neuroscience of intrinsic motivation: a new frontier in self-determination research. Front Hum Neurosci 2017; 11: 145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Adayener C, Okutucu T, Uygur C. Does prior laparoscopic and open surgery experience have any impact on learning curve in transition to robotic surgery?. J Urol Surg 2016; 3 (04) 110-113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R, MacRae H, Murnaghan J, Hutchison C, Brown M. Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg 1997; 84 (02) 273-278
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Vassiliou MC, Feldman LS, Andrew CG. et al. A global assessment tool for evaluation of intraoperative laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg 2005; 190 (01) 107-113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Collins JW, Dell'Oglio P, Hung AJ, Brook NR. The importance of technical and non-technical skills in robotic surgery training. Eur Urol Focus 2018; 4 (05) 674-676
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Satava RM, Reed WP. Proctors, preceptors, and laparoscopic surgery. The role of “proctor” in the surgical credentialing process. Surg Endosc 1993; 7 (04) 283-284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Livingston EH, Harwell JD. The medicolegal aspects of proctoring. Am J Surg 2002; 184 (01) 26-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Rivard PE, Rosen AK, Carroll JS. Enhancing patient safety through organizational learning: are patient safety indicators a step in the right direction?. Health Serv Res 2006; 41 (4 Pt 2): 1633-1653
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Choy I, Fecso A, Kwong J, Jackson T, Okrainec A. Remote evaluation of laparoscopic performance using the global operative assessment of laparoscopic skills. Surg Endosc 2013; 27 (02) 378-383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Lenihan Jr J, Brower M. Web-connected surgery: using the internet for teaching and proctoring of live robotic surgeries. J Robot Surg 2012; 6 (01) 47-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar