Barriers to Engagement in Surgical Simulation Education

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted clinical experience and case volumes. Surgical simulation is now an even more powerful training tool and, to maximize potential, we must ensure learner engagement. Our aim was to identify barriers to surgical simulation engagement and strategies to mitigate these. Method(s): Scoping search was performed with a trained librarian of PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science. Title and screening were completed with inclusion criteria: articles describing barriers to engagement with surgical simulation. After full text screening, data was extracted from included articles: type of study, MERSQI score, type/number of participants, barriers to engagement and strategies to mitigate these. Result(s): Twenty-nine manuscripts were included with 951 faculty and 2,467 residents. The majority (86%) were in high income countries (HIC) and four in LMICs. Most were surveys (22/29), and five involved semi-structured interviews/focus groups. Mean adjusted MERSQI score was 8. Commonest barriers to HIC engagement were learner clinical duties (9/25), lack of learner time (13/25), lack of learner interest/motivation (9/25) and lack of faculty time or interest to participate (12/25). In LMIC, commonest barriers were lack of simulation lab/equipment (4/4), cost (3/4) and inadequate supervision (3/4). Strategies to improve HIC engagement were mandatory/protected resident simulation training (9/25) and, in LMIC, low cost simulators (4/4) and sharing resources (2/4). Conclusion(s): Identification of barriers to simulation engagement is crucial for successful learning. Given the increased importance of simulation education due to the COVID-19 pandemic, surgical educators should strategize to maximize engagement.

Simulation to Educate Practicing Urologists in Rural Locations: Identifying Strategies to Increase Procedural Adoption

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated proliferation of telesimulation. This pedagogy may be useful in rural areas to increase procedural adoption and reduce healthcare disparities. Our aim was to determine the current status of surgical simulation education to retool rural practicing Urologists. Method(s): Literature search was performed with a trained librarian for PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science. Title/ screening were performed to include all studies of surgical simulation involving rural surgical learners to identify simulation education opportunities for practicing rural Urologists. Data was then extracted: simulation event, skills focus, MERSQI score, type/number of learners, learner assessment and event evaluation. Result(s): Seven manuscripts met inclusion criteria. Most were published 2019-2020 and were cross sectional (5/7, 71%). Mean adjusted MERSQI score was 13 (range 6-15.5). A wide range of surgical skills were taught (incl. laparoscopy, cricothyroidotomy, chest tube insertion, damage control laparotomy), but no Urological surgical skills. Two articles described mobile simulation units for rural areas. A total of 232 learners were identified including 69 medical students. One fifth of rural learners were non-medical or non-physicians. Only one study involved faculty, who were general surgeons. Conclusion(s): Telesimulation education for practicing Urologists in rural areas is lacking. Current in-operating room telementoring for rural Urologists requires surgeons to travel and perform their first cases utilizing this new technique on patients. Telesimulation to teach Urological skills in rural areas of the US may increase dissemination of techniques with no patient risk and has significant potential to redress current healthcare disparities.

Perceptions and behaviors of learner engagement with virtual educational platforms.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has increased utilization of educational technology for surgical education. Our aim was to determine attitudes and behaviors of surgical education champions towards virtual educational platforms and learner engagement. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to all Association of Surgical Education members addressing i) methods of engagement in virtual learning ii) ways to improve engagement and iii) what influences engagement. Stratified analysis was used to evaluate differences in responses by age, gender, level of training and specialty. RESULTS: 154 ASE members completed the survey (13% response rate). 88% respondents accessed virtual learning events at home. Most (87%) had joined a virtual learning event and then participated in another activity. 1 in 5 who did this did so "always" or "often". Female respondents were more likely than males to join audio and then participate in another activity (62.3% v 37.7%, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Virtual platforms do not automatically translate into increased learner engagement. Careful design of educational strategies is essential to increase and maintain learner engagement when utilizing virtual surgical education.

Assessing learner engagement with virtual educational events: Development of the Virtual In-Class Engagement Measure (VIEM).

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated virtual education, but effects on learner engagement are unknown. We developed a virtual in-class engagement measure (VIEM) to assess learner engagement in online surgical education events. METHODS: Using the STROBE, an observer collected tool to document student engagement, as a template an ASE committee workgroup developed the VIEM. The VIEM had two parts: observer assessment and learner self-assessment of engagement. Trained observers collected engagement data from two institutions using the VIEM. Surgical attendings, fellows and residents were observed during virtual learning events. Educator attitudes towards online teaching were also assessed via survey. RESULTS: 22 events with 839 learners were observed. VIEM distinguished between sessions with low and high engagement. 20% of learners pretended to participate. Half of instructors were comfortable with virtual teaching, but only 1/3 believed was as effective as in-person. 2/3 of teachers believed video learners were more engaged than audio learners. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual platforms do not automatically translate into increased engagement. Standard tools such as VIEM may help with assessment of engagement during virtual education.

Factors Associated With General Surgery Residents' Operative Experience During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Importance: The suspension of elective operations in March 2020 to prepare for the COVID-19 surge posed significant challenges to resident education. To mitigate the potential negative effects of COVID-19 on surgical education, it is important to quantify how the pandemic influenced resident operative volume. Objective: To examine the association of the pandemic with general surgical residents' operative experience by postgraduate year (PGY) and case type and to evaluate if certain institutional characteristics were associated with a greater decline in surgical volume. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective review included residents' operative logs from 3 consecutive academic years (2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020) from 16 general surgery programs. Data collected included total major cases, case type, and PGY. Faculty completed a survey about program demographics and COVID-19 response. Data on race were not collected. Operative volumes from March to June 2020 were compared with the same period during 2018 and 2019. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test adjusted for within-program correlations. Main Outcome and Measures: Total major cases performed by each resident during the first 4 months of the pandemic. Results: A total of 1368 case logs were analyzed. There was a 33.5% reduction in total major cases performed in March to June 2020 compared with 2018 and 2019 (45.0 [95% CI, 36.1-53.9] vs 67.7 [95% CI, 62.0-72.2];P < .001), which significantly affected every PGY. All case types were significantly reduced in 2020 except liver, pancreas, small intestine, and trauma cases. There was a 10.2% reduction in operative volume during the 2019-2020 academic year compared with the 2 previous years (192.3 [95% CI, 178.5-206.1] vs 213.8 [95% CI, 203.6-223.9];P < .001). Level 1 trauma centers (49.5 vs 68.5;27.7%) had a significantly lower reduction in case volume than non-level 1 trauma centers (33.9 vs 63.0;46%) (P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of operative logs of general surgery residents in 16 US programs from 2017 to 2020, the first 4 months of the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant reduction in operative experience, which affected every PGY and most case types. Level 1 trauma centers were less affected than non-level 1 centers. If this trend continues, the effect on surgical training may be even more detrimental.