Virtual interactive surgical skills classroom – a single-blinded, randomised control trial (VIRTUAL)
BAUS ePoster online library. Nathan A. 06/22/21; 319024; p11-6
Disclosure(s): Arjun Nathan is supported by the National Institute for Health Research. VIRTUAL trial was supported with a research grant by the Royal College of Surgeons England and University College London.
Dr. Arjun Nathan
REGULAR CONTENT
Login now to access Regular content available to all registered users.
Abstract
Discussion Forum (0)
Rate & Comment (0)
Introduction
High costs and inaccessibility are significant barriers to face-to-face (F2F) basic surgical skills (BSS) training. We aim to evaluate the efficacy of virtual (VC) BSS classroom training compared to both non-interactive video and face-to-face teaching.
Patients and Methods
72 UK medical students underwent stratified block randomisation into CBL, VC and F2F arms based on previous surgical skill experience and confidence. They were assessed pre- and post-intervention using the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) scores developed by the Royal College of Surgeons and marked by independent expert, blinded examiners. The task was to place three interrupted sutures with hand-tied knots.
Results
Mean OSAT score improved significantly after VC training (8.88/16 to 14.17/16). VC (+5.29) improved significantly greater than CBL (+4.75) and similar to F2F (+5.38). VC and F2F were scored similarly in time to completion but both scored significantly better than CBL. Suturing confidence improved in all three groups. Cost per participant was significantly lower for VC (£8) than F2F (£30) and time spent travelling was also significantly lower for VC (0mins) compared to F2F (50mins).
Conclusion
This is the largest randomised control trial investigating virtual BSS classroom training. VC is an effective method of delivering basic surgical skill training. VC is more effective than non-interactive CBL and just as effective as F2F teaching. VC is cheaper and more accessible than F2F. The VC is a safe and effective training method during the COVID-19 pandemic and can be used in the future to improve accessibility of surgical training.
High costs and inaccessibility are significant barriers to face-to-face (F2F) basic surgical skills (BSS) training. We aim to evaluate the efficacy of virtual (VC) BSS classroom training compared to both non-interactive video and face-to-face teaching.
Patients and Methods
72 UK medical students underwent stratified block randomisation into CBL, VC and F2F arms based on previous surgical skill experience and confidence. They were assessed pre- and post-intervention using the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) scores developed by the Royal College of Surgeons and marked by independent expert, blinded examiners. The task was to place three interrupted sutures with hand-tied knots.
Results
Mean OSAT score improved significantly after VC training (8.88/16 to 14.17/16). VC (+5.29) improved significantly greater than CBL (+4.75) and similar to F2F (+5.38). VC and F2F were scored similarly in time to completion but both scored significantly better than CBL. Suturing confidence improved in all three groups. Cost per participant was significantly lower for VC (£8) than F2F (£30) and time spent travelling was also significantly lower for VC (0mins) compared to F2F (50mins).
Conclusion
This is the largest randomised control trial investigating virtual BSS classroom training. VC is an effective method of delivering basic surgical skill training. VC is more effective than non-interactive CBL and just as effective as F2F teaching. VC is cheaper and more accessible than F2F. The VC is a safe and effective training method during the COVID-19 pandemic and can be used in the future to improve accessibility of surgical training.
Introduction
High costs and inaccessibility are significant barriers to face-to-face (F2F) basic surgical skills (BSS) training. We aim to evaluate the efficacy of virtual (VC) BSS classroom training compared to both non-interactive video and face-to-face teaching.
Patients and Methods
72 UK medical students underwent stratified block randomisation into CBL, VC and F2F arms based on previous surgical skill experience and confidence. They were assessed pre- and post-intervention using the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) scores developed by the Royal College of Surgeons and marked by independent expert, blinded examiners. The task was to place three interrupted sutures with hand-tied knots.
Results
Mean OSAT score improved significantly after VC training (8.88/16 to 14.17/16). VC (+5.29) improved significantly greater than CBL (+4.75) and similar to F2F (+5.38). VC and F2F were scored similarly in time to completion but both scored significantly better than CBL. Suturing confidence improved in all three groups. Cost per participant was significantly lower for VC (£8) than F2F (£30) and time spent travelling was also significantly lower for VC (0mins) compared to F2F (50mins).
Conclusion
This is the largest randomised control trial investigating virtual BSS classroom training. VC is an effective method of delivering basic surgical skill training. VC is more effective than non-interactive CBL and just as effective as F2F teaching. VC is cheaper and more accessible than F2F. The VC is a safe and effective training method during the COVID-19 pandemic and can be used in the future to improve accessibility of surgical training.
High costs and inaccessibility are significant barriers to face-to-face (F2F) basic surgical skills (BSS) training. We aim to evaluate the efficacy of virtual (VC) BSS classroom training compared to both non-interactive video and face-to-face teaching.
Patients and Methods
72 UK medical students underwent stratified block randomisation into CBL, VC and F2F arms based on previous surgical skill experience and confidence. They were assessed pre- and post-intervention using the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) scores developed by the Royal College of Surgeons and marked by independent expert, blinded examiners. The task was to place three interrupted sutures with hand-tied knots.
Results
Mean OSAT score improved significantly after VC training (8.88/16 to 14.17/16). VC (+5.29) improved significantly greater than CBL (+4.75) and similar to F2F (+5.38). VC and F2F were scored similarly in time to completion but both scored significantly better than CBL. Suturing confidence improved in all three groups. Cost per participant was significantly lower for VC (£8) than F2F (£30) and time spent travelling was also significantly lower for VC (0mins) compared to F2F (50mins).
Conclusion
This is the largest randomised control trial investigating virtual BSS classroom training. VC is an effective method of delivering basic surgical skill training. VC is more effective than non-interactive CBL and just as effective as F2F teaching. VC is cheaper and more accessible than F2F. The VC is a safe and effective training method during the COVID-19 pandemic and can be used in the future to improve accessibility of surgical training.
Code of conduct/disclaimer available in General Terms & Conditions
{{ help_message }}
{{filter}}