Training, Credentialing, Proctoring and Medicolegal Risks of Robotic Urological Surgery

Recommendations of the Society of Urologic Robotic Surgeons

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, KoonHo Rha, Scott E. Eggener & 5 others Peter Wiklund, Alex Mottrie, Fatih Atug, Ali R. Kural, Jean V. Joseph

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

152 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1126-1132
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Urology
Volume182
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2009 Sep 1

Fingerprint

Credentialing
Robotics
Prostatectomy
Guidelines
Surgical Specialties
Technology
Safety
Malpractice
Certification
Immunity
Observation
Surgeons
Growth

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Urology

Cite this

Zorn, Kevin C. ; Gautam, Gagan ; Shalhav, Arieh L. ; Clayman, Ralph V. ; Ahlering, Thomas E. ; Albala, David M. ; Lee, David I. ; Sundaram, Chandru P. ; Matin, Surena F. ; Castle, Erik P. ; Winfield, Howard N. ; Gettman, Matthew T. ; Lee, Benjamin R. ; Thomas, Raju ; Patel, Vipul R. ; Leveillee, Raymond J. ; Wong, Carson ; Badlani, Gopal H. ; Rha, KoonHo ; Eggener, Scott E. ; Wiklund, Peter ; Mottrie, Alex ; Atug, Fatih ; Kural, Ali R. ; Joseph, Jean V. / Training, Credentialing, Proctoring and Medicolegal Risks of Robotic Urological Surgery : Recommendations of the Society of Urologic Robotic Surgeons. In: Journal of Urology. 2009 ; Vol. 182, No. 3. pp. 1126-1132.
@article{1fd0ed4400ee426fa2cb9b9d2bbb9f0d,
title = "Training, Credentialing, Proctoring and Medicolegal Risks of Robotic Urological Surgery: Recommendations of the Society of Urologic Robotic Surgeons",
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.",
author = "Zorn, {Kevin C.} and Gagan Gautam and Shalhav, {Arieh L.} and Clayman, {Ralph V.} and Ahlering, {Thomas E.} and Albala, {David M.} and Lee, {David I.} and Sundaram, {Chandru P.} and Matin, {Surena F.} and Castle, {Erik P.} and Winfield, {Howard N.} and Gettman, {Matthew T.} and Lee, {Benjamin R.} and Raju Thomas and Patel, {Vipul R.} and Leveillee, {Raymond J.} and Carson Wong and Badlani, {Gopal H.} and KoonHo Rha and Eggener, {Scott E.} and Peter Wiklund and Alex Mottrie and Fatih Atug and Kural, {Ali R.} and Joseph, {Jean V.}",
year = "2009",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.042",
language = "English",
volume = "182",
pages = "1126--1132",
journal = "Journal of Urology",
issn = "0022-5347",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "3",

}

Zorn, KC, Gautam, G, Shalhav, AL, Clayman, RV, Ahlering, TE, Albala, DM, Lee, DI, Sundaram, CP, Matin, SF, Castle, EP, Winfield, HN, Gettman, MT, Lee, BR, Thomas, R, Patel, VR, Leveillee, RJ, Wong, C, Badlani, GH, Rha, K, Eggener, SE, Wiklund, P, Mottrie, A, Atug, F, Kural, AR & Joseph, JV 2009, 'Training, Credentialing, Proctoring and Medicolegal Risks of Robotic Urological Surgery: Recommendations of the Society of Urologic Robotic Surgeons', Journal of Urology, vol. 182, no. 3, pp. 1126-1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.042

Training, Credentialing, Proctoring and Medicolegal Risks of Robotic Urological Surgery : Recommendations of the Society of Urologic Robotic Surgeons. / Zorn, Kevin C.; Gautam, Gagan; Shalhav, Arieh L.; Clayman, Ralph V.; Ahlering, Thomas E.; Albala, David M.; Lee, David I.; Sundaram, Chandru P.; Matin, Surena F.; Castle, Erik P.; Winfield, Howard N.; Gettman, Matthew T.; Lee, Benjamin R.; Thomas, Raju; Patel, Vipul R.; Leveillee, Raymond J.; Wong, Carson; Badlani, Gopal H.; Rha, KoonHo; Eggener, Scott E.; Wiklund, Peter; Mottrie, Alex; Atug, Fatih; Kural, Ali R.; Joseph, Jean V.

In: Journal of Urology, Vol. 182, No. 3, 01.09.2009, p. 1126-1132.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Training, Credentialing, Proctoring and Medicolegal Risks of Robotic Urological Surgery

T2 - Recommendations of the Society of Urologic Robotic Surgeons

AU - Zorn, Kevin C.

AU - Gautam, Gagan

AU - Shalhav, Arieh L.

AU - Clayman, Ralph V.

AU - Ahlering, Thomas E.

AU - Albala, David M.

AU - Lee, David I.

AU - Sundaram, Chandru P.

AU - Matin, Surena F.

AU - Castle, Erik P.

AU - Winfield, Howard N.

AU - Gettman, Matthew T.

AU - Lee, Benjamin R.

AU - Thomas, Raju

AU - Patel, Vipul R.

AU - Leveillee, Raymond J.

AU - Wong, Carson

AU - Badlani, Gopal H.

AU - Rha, KoonHo

AU - Eggener, Scott E.

AU - Wiklund, Peter

AU - Mottrie, Alex

AU - Atug, Fatih

AU - Kural, Ali R.

AU - Joseph, Jean V.

PY - 2009/9/1

Y1 - 2009/9/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=68149157349&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=68149157349&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.042

DO - 10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.042

M3 - Article

VL - 182

SP - 1126

EP - 1132

JO - Journal of Urology

JF - Journal of Urology

SN - 0022-5347

IS - 3

ER -