A nurse practitioner model for the assessment of suspected prostate cancer referrals is safe, cost and time efficient.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcomes from a Urology Nurse Practitioner (UNP)-led service for the initial assessment and diagnostic decision making and for suspected prostate cancer referrals. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi analysis approach, a panel of Urological Prostate Cancer specialists were asked to review the UNP management plans of a convenience sample of 60 randomly selected patient cases - between June 2012 and June 2015. The panel was required to establish consensus or identify divergence of clinical practice, based on five key statements. In addition, cost analysis, waiting time and patient satisfaction evaluation were made regarding the nurse-led service. RESULTS: In 87% (52/60 cases), consensus was reached by the panel that the UNP management plan was entirely appropriate and in only two cases was there discordance, where the panel felt that the management plan by the UNP was inappropriate with errors potentially and significantly affecting the patient. Over the 3 years, a modest cost saving of £11,500.38 was realised, which due to increased referrals has now realised in 1 year (2017/18) a saving of £11,335.50. Compared to the previous physician-led service, waiting times for patient appointment fell by 52% over the 3-year period; 57/63 (90%) patients reported being satisfied with seeing a UNP instead of a doctor for their first appointment; 60/63 (95%) reported that, following the initial hospital visit with the UNP, they had a clear understanding of what the next steps were in their assessment. Overall, 54/63 (86%) were 'very satisfied' with the UNP-led service. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that a UNP approach to the assessment and management of suspected prostate cancer referrals provides an effective approach to care in an ever-demanding healthcare arena.Through a supported training programme, urology nurses can deliver a high standard of service.

Development of a technical checklist for the assessment of suturing in robotic surgery.

BACKGROUND: With the increased use of simulation for surgical training, there is a need for objective forms of assessment to evaluate trainees. The Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotic Skills (GEARS) is widely used for assessing skills in robotic surgery, but there are no recognised checklist scoring systems. This study aimed to develop a checklist for suturing in robotic surgery. METHODS: A suturing checklist for needle driving and knot tying was constructed following evaluation of participants performing urethrovesical anastomoses. Key procedural steps were identified from expert videos, while assessing novice videos allowed identification of common technical errors. 22 novice and 13 expert videos were marked on needle driving, while 18 novices and 10 experts were assessed on knot tying. Validation of the finalised checklist was performed with the assessment of 39 separate novices by an expert surgeon and compared to GEARS scoring. RESULTS: The internal consistency of the preliminary checklist was high (Cronbach's alpha = 0.870 for needle driving items; 0.736 for knot tying items), and after removal of poorly correlating items, the final checklist contained 23 steps. Both the needle driving and knot tying categories discriminated between novices and experts, p < 0.005. While the GEARS score demonstrated construct validity for needle driving, it could not significantly differentiate between novices and experts for knot tying, p = 0.286. The needle driving category significantly correlated with the corresponding GEARS scores (rs = 0.613, p < 0.005), but the correlation for knot tying was insignificant (rs = 0.296, p = 0.127). The pilot data indicates the checklist significantly correlated with the GEARS score (p < 0.005). CONCLUSION: This study reports the development of a valid assessment tool for suturing in robotic surgery. Given that checklists are simple to use, there is significant scope for this checklist to be used in surgical training.

Introducing new technology safely into urological practice.

PURPOSE: Surgical innovation is necessary to ensure continued improvement in patient care. However, several challenges unique to the surgical craft are encountered during the development and validation of such new technology. This article highlights some of these challenges and gives an overview of existing solutions. METHODS: A Pubmed review was performed about the "introduction of new technology" to identify challenges. Cross-referencing was used to explore the possible solutions per challenge. RESULTS: Several characteristics of the surgical craft itself limit our ability to establish randomised controlled trials and hence provide clear categorical evidence. Existing certification bodies for new technology often use unstructured regulations and allow fast-track bypassing systems. Consequently the IDEAL framework (innovation, development, exploration, assessment, long-term follow-up) proposes an objective scientific approach whilst defining stakeholder responsibilities. The selection of which new modality to implement is heavily influenced by third parties unrelated to the best patient outcomes and thus professional organisations can aid in this decision-making. Appropriate training of surgeons and their teams until proficiency is achieved is essential prior to credentialling. Finally long-term surveillance of outcomes in the form of registries is an increasing responsibility of the urological community to maintain our role in directing the adoption or rejection of these innovations. CONCLUSION: Urological innovation is a dynamic and challenging process. Increasing efforts are identified within the urological community to render the process more reliable and transparent.

Modular Training for Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Where to Begin?

OBJECTIVE: Effective training is paramount for patient safety. Modular training entails advancing through surgical steps of increasing difficulty. This study aimed to construct a modular training pathway for use in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). It aims to identify the sequence of procedural steps that are learnt before surgeons are able to perform a full procedure without an intervention from mentor. DESIGN: This is a multi-institutional, prospective, observational, longitudinal study. We used a validated training tool (RARP Score). Data regarding surgeons' stage of training and progress were collected for analysis. A modular training pathway was constructed with consensus on the level of difficulty and evaluation of individual steps. We identified and recorded the sequence of steps performed by fellows during their learning curves. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We included 15 urology fellows from UK, Europe, and Australia. RESULTS: A total of 15 surgeons were assessed by mentors in 425 RARP cases over 8 months (range: 7-79) across 15 international centers. There were substantial differences in the sequence of RARP steps according to the chronology of the procedure, difficulty level, and the order in which surgeons actually learned steps. Steps were not attempted in chronological order. The greater the difficulty, the later the cohort first undertook the step (p = 0.021). The cohort undertook steps of difficulty level I at median case number 1. Steps of difficulty levels II, III, and IV showed more variation in median case number of the first attempt. We recommend that, in the operating theater, steps be learned in order of increasing difficulty. A new modular training route has been designed. This incorporates the steps of RARP with the following order of priority: difficulty level > median case number of first attempt > most frequently undertaken in surgical training. CONCLUSIONS: An evidence-based modular training pathway has been developed that facilitates a safe introduction to RARP for novice surgeons.

Cost effectiveness and robot-assisted urologic surgery: does it make dollars and sense?

INTRODUCTION: The introduction of the robotic surgical platform has led to distinct changes in practice patterns and the utilization of minimally invasive surgery in urology. While use of the robotic system is associated with improvements in perioperative outcomes such as estimated blood loss and hospital stay, there are significant fixed and variable costs with the purchase, maintenance and use of the robotics system that has led many authors to investigate the cost effectiveness of robotic urologic surgery. We sought to examine the best current available evidence for the cost effectiveness of robotic urologic surgery. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Comprehensive electronic literature searches were conducted without language restriction to identify reports of published studies within PubMed/Medline, SCOPUS and Web of Science. Relevant articles were examined and reference lists cross referenced to find additional pertinent publications. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: PubMed literature searches of "robot urology cost" (304 articles) "robotic prostatectomy cost" (215 articles), "robotic nephrectomy cost" (87 articles), "robotic cystectomy cost" (44 articles) and "robotic pyeloplasty cost" (41 articles) were initially reviewed in abstract form to find appropriate articles for inclusion. Given that robotic cystectomy (559 articles), robotic pyeloplasty (344 articles) robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (59 articles) are less frequently performed than robotic prostatectomy, all available articles published from January 1st 2000 until July 31st 2016 were reviewed for potential inclusion. After excluding duplicates, appropriate articles were pulled for full text review. 49 articles were used for the final analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The available literature on the cost effectiveness of robotic urologic surgery is somewhat limited by heterogeneity of research methods, local cost variations and methods for determining costs associated with surgical outcomes. The introduction of the robotic surgical platform has led to a dramatic change in the availability and utilization of laparoscopic surgery and is associated with both favorable perioperative outcomes as well as significantly greater fixed costs related to instrumentation and equipment expenses. Well-designed trials comparing open and robotic approaches in the contemporary era of widespread robotic adoption with quality of life and validated economic metrics will be necessary to provide evidence for continued use of this valuable technology.

Structured and Modular Training Pathway for Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP): Validation of the RARP Assessment Score and Learning Curve Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Use of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for prostate cancer is increasing. Structured surgical training and objective assessment are critical for outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a modular training and assessment pathway via Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (HFMEA) for trainees undertaking RARP and evaluate learning curves (LCs) for procedural steps. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This multi-institutional (Europe, Australia, and United States) observational prospective study used HFMEA to identify the high-risk steps of RARP. A specialist focus group enabled validation. Fifteen trainees who underwent European Association of Urology robotic surgery curriculum training performed RARP and were assessed by mentors using the tool developed. Results produced LCs for each step. A plateau above score 4 indicated competence. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We used a modular training and assessment tool (RARP Assessment Score) to evaluate technical skills. LCs were constructed. Multivariable Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, and κ coefficient analyses were used. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Five surgeons were observed for 42 console hours to map steps of RARP. HFMEA identified 84 failure modes and 46 potential causes with a hazard score ≥8. Content validation created the RARP Assessment Score: 17 stages and 41 steps. The RARP Assessment Score was acceptable (56.67%), feasible (96.67%), and had educational impact (100%). Fifteen robotic surgery trainees were assessed for 8 mo. In 426 RARP cases (range: 4-79), all procedural steps were attempted by trainees. Trainees were assessed with the RARP Assessment Score by their expert mentors, and LCs for individual steps were plotted. LCs demonstrated plateaus for anterior bladder neck transection (16 cases), posterior bladder neck transection (18 cases), posterior dissection (9 cases), dissection of prostatic pedicle and seminal vesicles (15 cases), and anastomosis (17 cases). Other steps did not plateau during data collection. CONCLUSIONS: The RARP Assessment Score based on HFMEA methodology identified critical steps for focused RARP training and assessed surgeons. LCs demonstrate the experience necessary to reach a level of competence in technical skills to protect patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: We developed a safety and assessment tool to gauge the technical skills of surgeons performing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Improvement was monitored, and measures of progress can be used in future to guide mentors when training surgeons to operate safely.

An assessment of the physical impact of complex surgical tasks on surgeon errors and discomfort: a comparison between robot-assisted, laparoscopic and open approaches.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate, in a simulated suturing task, individual surgeons' performance using three surgical approaches: open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted. subjects and methods: Six urological surgeons made an in vitro simulated vesico-urethral anastomosis. All surgeons performed the simulated suturing task using all three surgical approaches (open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted). The time taken to perform each task was recorded. Participants were evaluated for perceived discomfort using the self-reporting Borg scale. Errors made by surgeons were quantified by studying the video recording of the tasks. Anastomosis quality was quantified using scores for knot security, symmetry of suture, position of suture and apposition of anastomosis. RESULTS: The time taken to complete the task by the laparoscopic approach was on average 221 s, compared with 55 s for the open approach and 116 s for the robot-assisted approach (anova, P < 0.005). The number of errors and the level of self-reported discomfort were highest for the laparoscopic approach (anova, P < 0.005). Limitations of the present study include the small sample size and variation in prior surgical experience of the participants. CONCLUSIONS: In an in vitro model of anastomosis surgery, robot-assisted surgery combines the accuracy of open surgery while causing lesser surgeon discomfort than laparoscopy and maintaining minimal access.

Introducing the productive operating theatre programme in urology theatre suites.

BACKGROUND: The Productive Operating Theatre (TPOT) is a theatre improvement programme designed by the UK National Health Service. The aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation of TPOT in urology operating theatres and identify obstacles to running an ideal operating list. METHOD: TPOT was introduced in two urology operating theatres in September 2010. A multidisciplinary team identified and audited obstacles to the running of an ideal operating list. A brief/debrief system was introduced and patient satisfaction was recorded via a structured questionnaire. The primary outcome measure was the effect of TPOT on start and overrun times. RESULTS: Start times: 39-41% increase in operating lists starting on time from September 2010 to June 2011, involving 1,365 cases. Overrun times: Declined by 832 min between March 2010 and March 2011. The cost of monthly overrun decreased from September 2010 to June 2011 by GBP 510-3,030. Patient experience: A high degree of satisfaction regarding level of care (77%), staff hygiene (71%) and information provided (72%), while negative comments regarding staff shortages and environment/facilities were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: TPOT has helped identify key obstacles and shown improvements in efficiency measures such as start/overrun times.

Current status of validation for robotic surgery simulators - a systematic review.

To analyse studies validating the effectiveness of robotic surgery simulators. The MEDLINE(®), EMBASE(®) and PsycINFO(®) databases were systematically searched until September 2011. References from retrieved articles were reviewed to broaden the search. The simulator name, training tasks, participant level, training duration and evaluation scoring were extracted from each study. We also extracted data on feasibility, validity, cost-effectiveness, reliability and educational impact. We identified 19 studies investigating simulation options in robotic surgery. There are five different robotic surgery simulation platforms available on the market. In all, 11 studies sought opinion and compared performance between two different groups; 'expert' and 'novice'. Experts ranged in experience from 21-2200 robotic cases. The novice groups consisted of participants with no prior experience on a robotic platform and were often medical students or junior doctors. The Mimic dV-Trainer(®), ProMIS(®), SimSurgery Educational Platform(®) (SEP) and Intuitive systems have shown face, content and construct validity. The Robotic Surgical SimulatorTM system has only been face and content validated. All of the simulators except SEP have shown educational impact. Feasibility and cost-effectiveness of simulation systems was not evaluated in any trial. Virtual reality simulators were shown to be effective training tools for junior trainees. Simulation training holds the greatest potential to be used as an adjunct to traditional training methods to equip the next generation of robotic surgeons with the skills required to operate safely. However, current simulation models have only been validated in small studies. There is no evidence to suggest one type of simulator provides more effective training than any other. More research is needed to validate simulated environments further and investigate the effectiveness of animal and cadaveric training in robotic surgery.

Assessing the cost effectiveness of robotics in urological surgery - a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Although robotic technology is becoming increasingly popular for urological procedures, barriers to its widespread dissemination include cost and the lack of long term outcomes. This systematic review analyzed studies comparing the use of robotic with laparoscopic and open urological surgery. These three procedures were assessed for cost efficiency in the form of direct as well as indirect costs that could arise from length of surgery, hospital stay, complications, learning curve and postoperative outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review was performed searching Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases. Two reviewers identified abstracts using online databases and independently reviewed full length papers suitable for inclusion in the study. RESULTS: Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy are superior with respect to reduced hospital stay (range 1-1.76 days and 1-5.5 days, respectively) and blood loss (range 482-780 mL and 227-234 mL, respectively) when compared with the open approach (range 2-8 days and 1015 mL). Robot assisted radical prostatectomy remains more expensive (total cost ranging from US $2000-$39,215) than both laparoscopic (range US $740-$29,771) and open radical prostatectomy (range US $1870-$31,518). This difference is due to the cost of robot purchase, maintenance and instruments. The reduced length of stay in hospital (range 1-1.5 days) and length of surgery (range 102-360 min) are unable to compensate for the excess costs. Robotic surgery may require a smaller learning curve (20-40 cases) although the evidence is inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery provides similar postoperative outcomes to laparoscopic surgery but a reduced learning curve. Although costs are currently high, increased competition from manufacturers and wider dissemination of the technology could drive down costs. Further trials are needed to evaluate long term outcomes in order to evaluate fully the value of all three procedures in urological surgery.

A randomized trial of photoselective vaporization of the prostate using the 80-W potassium-titanyl-phosphate laser vs transurethral prostatectomy, with a 1-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the potassium-titanyl-phosphate Greenlight(TM) 80-W laser ablation system for photovaporization of the prostate (PVP; Laserscope, San Jose, CA, USA) with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), as many technologies have been proposed as equivalent or superior to TURP without gaining widespread acceptance, due to lack of data from randomized trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 120 patients were randomized to undergo either TURP or PVP after a full urological evaluation, which was repeated at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. Irrigation use, duration of catheterization (DOC), length of hospital stay (LOS), blood loss, cost and operative time were also assessed. RESULTS: Both groups showed a significant increase in mean (sd) maximum urinary flow rate from baseline (P < 0.05); in the TURP group from 8.9 (3.0) to 19.4 (8.7) mL/s (154%), and in the PVP group from 8.8 (2.5) to 18.6 (8.2) mL/s (136%). The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) decreased from 25.4 (5.7) to 10.9 (9.4) in the TURP group (53%), and from 25.3 (5.9) to 8.9 (7.6) in the PVP group (61%). The trends were similar for the bother and Quality of Life scores. There was no difference in sexual function as measured by Baseline Sexual Function Questionnaires. The DOC was significantly less in the PVP than the TURP group (P < 0.001), with a mean (range) of 13 (0-24) h vs 44.7 (6-192) h. The situation was similar for LOS (P < 0.001), with a mean (range) of 1.09 (1-2) and 3.6 (3-9) days in the PVP and TURP groups, respectively. Adverse events and complications were less frequent in the PVP group. Costs were also 22% less in the PVP group. CONCLUSIONS: This trial shows that PVP is an effective technique when compared to TURP, producing equivalent improvements in flow rates and IPSS with the advantages of markedly reduced LOS, DOC and adverse events. A long-term follow-up is being undertaken to ensure durability of these results.