Aims COVID-19 led to a shift from in-person events to online formats for many conferences
and seminars. While online education tools have proven valuable, hands-on training
still requires on-site guidance. In response, we revamped our training system, focusing
on ICT-based education, specifically remote hands-on training with the support of
Olympus Marketing Co., Ltd. since 2020. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness
of remote hands-on training.
Methods Remote Training [One month before the training] Participants are required to complete
pre-learning through a dedicated Olympus website, which includes instructional videos
on basic scope operations. A pre-session survey was also conducted to share individual
challenges with instructors. [On the day of training] Participants gathered at Olympus
branch offices nationwide and received real-time guidance from instructors at the
central facility via monitors. To ensure detailed feedback, endoscopic monitors, instructional
monitors, and external cameras capturing participants' hand movements were used, allowing
instructors to observe and provide guidance from three angles. Participants and instructors
communicated interactively via microphones, enabling participants to ask questions
immediately. [Three months after the training] Participants submitted videos of actual
cases they encountered to a web-based case discussion session, where multiple instructors
provided feedback and further guidance based on the cases presented by the participants.
The effectiveness of the training was evaluated based on survey results from 40 participants
who had previously attended the training.
Results Survey results indicated that 35 participants (88%) were very satisfied with the
training, and all 40 participants (100%) agreed that remote hands-on training would
remain a necessary educational method in the future. When comparing remote training
with on-site guidance, 32 participants (80%) expressed a preference for remote instruction
in future sessions. Specific advantages included avoiding the 'three Cs' (closed spaces,
crowded places, and close-contact settings), improved accessibility in terms of time,
location, and cost, more detailed instruction on hand movements, and the immersive
experience provided by the training. As for disadvantages, there were occasional audio
delays and some participants expressed a desire for more hands-on guidance. While
remote training cannot fully replace traditional on-site training, the feedback emphasized
unique benefits specific to remote learning.
Conclusions Remote hands-on training not only overcomes geographic and time constraints but also
enables more detailed instruction. Given these advantages, we believe it is meaningful
to continue implementing remote training alongside traditional methods in the post-COVID
era.