0 313

Cited 162 times in

Training, credentialing, proctoring and medicolegal risks of robotic urological surgery: recommendations of the society of urologic robotic surgeons

Authors
 Kevin C. Zorn  ;  Gagan Gautam  ;  Arieh L. Shalhav, Ralph V. Clayman  ;  Thomas E. Ahlering  ;  David M. Albala  ;  David I. Lee  ;  Chandru P. Sundaram  ;  Surena F. Matin  ;  Erik P. Castle  ;  Howard N. Winfield  ;  Matthew T. Gettman  ;  Benjamin R. Lee  ;  Raju Thomas  ;  Vipul R. Patel  ;  Raymond J. Leveillee  ;  Carson Wong  ;  Gopal H. Badlani  ;  Koon H. Rha  ;  Scott E. Eggener  ;  Peter Wiklund  ;  Alex Mottrie  ;  Fatih Atug  ;  Ali R. Kural  ;  Jean V. Joseph 
Citation
 JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, Vol.182(3) : 1126-1132, 2009 
Journal Title
 JOURNAL OF UROLOGY 
ISSN
 0022-5347 
Issue Date
2009
MeSH
Clinical Competence ; Credentialing/standards* ; Education, Medical, Continuing ; Education, Medical, Graduate ; Humans ; Internship and Residency ; Robotics/education* ; Robotics/legislation & jurisprudence ; Robotics/standards ; Urologic Surgical Procedures/education* ; Urologic Surgical Procedures/legislation & jurisprudence ; Urologic Surgical Procedures/methods ; Urologic Surgical Procedures/standards
Keywords
education ; laparoscopy ; robotics ; liability ; legal ; safety
Abstract
PURPOSE: With the exponential growth of robotic urological surgery, particularly with robot assisted radical prostatectomy, guidelines for safe initiation of this technology are a necessity. Currently no standardized credentialing system exists to our knowledge to evaluate surgeon competency and safety with robotic urological surgery performance. Although proctoring is a modality by which such competency can be evaluated, other training tools and guidelines are needed to ensure that the requisite knowledge and technical skills to perform this procedure have been acquired. We evaluated the current status of proctoring and credentialing in other surgical specialties to discuss and recommend its application and implementation specifically for robot assisted radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the literature on safety and medicolegal implications of proctoring and the safe introduction of surgical procedures to develop recommendations for robot assisted radical prostatectomy proctoring and credentialing. RESULTS: Proctoring is an essential mechanism for robot assisted radical prostatectomy institutional credentialing and should be a prerequisite for granting unrestricted privileges on the robot. This should be differentiated from preceptoring, wherein the expert is directly involved in hands-on training. Advanced technology has opened new avenues for long-distance observation through teleproctoring. Although the medicolegal implications of an active surgical intervention by a proctor are not clearly defined, the role as an observer should grant immunity from malpractice liability. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of guidelines and proctoring recommendations is necessary to protect surgeons, proctors, institutions and, above all, the patients who are associated with the institutional introduction of a robot assisted radical prostatectomy program. With no current guidelines we anticipate this article will serve as a catalyst of interorganizational discussion to initiate regulatory oversight of surgeon certification and proctorship.
Full Text
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022534709011811
DOI
10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.042
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Urology (비뇨의학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
Yonsei Authors
Rha, Koon Ho(나군호) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8588-7584
URI
https://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/105642
사서에게 알리기
  feedback

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse

Links