Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 3/2016

01-03-2016

Development and implementation of the Structured Training Trainer Assessment Report (STTAR) in the English National Training Programme for laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Authors: Susannah M. Wyles, Danilo Miskovic, Zhifang Ni, Ara W. Darzi, Roland M. Valori, Mark G. Coleman, George B. Hanna

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 3/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

There is a lack of educational tools available for surgical teaching critique, particularly for advanced laparoscopic surgery. The aim was to develop and implement a tool that assesses training quality and structures feedback for trainers in the English National Training Programme for laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were performed and analysed, and items were extracted. Through the Delphi process, essential items pertaining to desirable trainer characteristics, training structure and feedback were determined. An assessment tool (Structured Training Trainer Assessment Report—STTAR) was developed and tested for feasibility, acceptability and educational impact.

Results

Interview transcripts (29 surgical trainers, 10 trainees, four educationalists) were analysed, and item lists created and distributed for consensus opinion (11 trainers and seven trainees). The STTAR consisted of 64 factors, and its web-based version, the mini-STTAR, included 21 factors that were categorised into four groups (training structure, training behaviour, trainer attributes and role modelling) and structured around a training session timeline (beginning, middle and end). The STTAR (six trainers, 48 different assessments) demonstrated good internal consistency (α = 0.88) and inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.75). The mini-STTAR demonstrated good inter-item reliability (α = 0.79) and intra-observer reliability on comparison of 85 different trainer/trainee combinations (r = 0.701, p = <0.001). Both were found to be feasible and acceptable. The educational report for trainers was found to be useful (4.4 out of 5).

Conclusions

An assessment tool that evaluates training quality was developed and shown to be reliable, acceptable and of educational value. It has been successfully implemented into the English National Training Programme for laparoscopic colorectal surgery.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Birch DW, Bonjer HJ, Crossley C et al (2009) Canadian consensus conference on the development of training and practice standards in advanced minimally invasive surgery: Edmonton, Alta., Jun. 1, 2007. Can J Surg 52(4):321–327
2.
Blue AV, Griffith CH 3rd, Wilson J et al (1999) Surgical teaching quality makes a difference. Am J Surg 177(1):86–89CrossRefPubMed
3.
Hull L, Arora S, Aggarwal R et al (2012) The impact of nontechnical skills on technical performance in surgery: a systematic review. J Am Coll Surg 214(2):214–230CrossRefPubMed
4.
Sevdalis N, Davis R, Koutantji M et al (2008) Reliability of a revised NOTECHS scale for use in surgical teams. Am J Surg 196(2):184–190CrossRefPubMed
5.
Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR et al (2009) A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. New Engl J Med 360(5):491–499CrossRefPubMed
6.
Peyton J (1998) Teaching and learning in medical practice. Manticore Europe Limited, Rickmansworth
7.
Skeff KM, Stratos GA, Berman J et al (1992) Improving clinical teaching. Evaluation of a national dissemination program. Arch Intern Med 152(6):1156–1161CrossRefPubMed
8.
Copertino N, Blackham R, Hamdorf JM (2010) A short course for surgical supervisors and trainers: effecting behavioural change. ANZ J Surg 80(12):896–901CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
Copeland HL, Hewson MG (2000) Developing and testing an instrument to measure the effectiveness of clinical teaching in an academic medical center. Acad Med 75(2):161–166CrossRefPubMed
11.
Cohen R, MacRae H, Jamieson C (1996) Teaching effectiveness of surgeons. Am J Surg 171(6):612–614CrossRefPubMed
12.
Beckman TJ, Ghosh AK, Cook DA et al (2004) How reliable are assessments of clinical teaching? A review of the published instruments. J Gen Intern Med 19(9):971–977PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
13.
Miskovic D, Wyles SM, Ni M et al (2010) Systematic review on mentoring and simulation in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Ann Surg 252(2):943–951CrossRefPubMed
14.
Coleman MG, Hanna GB, Kennedy R (2011) The National Training Programme for laparoscopic colorectal surgery in England: a new training paradigm. Colorectal Dis 13(6):614–616CrossRefPubMed
15.
Wyles SM, Miskovic D, Ni M et al (2012) “Trainee” evaluation of the English National Training Programme for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 14(6):352–357CrossRef
16.
17.
Kennedy TJ, Lingard LA (2006) Making sense of grounded theory in medical education. Med Educ 40(2):101–108CrossRefPubMed
18.
19.
20.
21.
Mackenzie H, Cuming T, Miskovic D et al (2013) Design, delivery, and validation of a trainer curriculum for the national laparoscopic colorectal training program in England. Ann Surg 261(1):149–156CrossRef
22.
Streiner N, Norman G (2008) Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef
23.
Whyte WF (1982) Interviewing in field research. George Allen and Unwin, London
24.
Lingard L, Regehr G, Espin S et al (2006) A theory-based instrument to evaluate team communication in the operating room: balancing measurement authenticity and reliability. Qual Saf Health Care 15(6):422–426PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
25.
Irby DM (1978) Clinical teacher effectiveness in medicine. J Med Educ 53(10):808–815PubMed
26.
Nisar PJ, Scott HJ (2011) Key attributes of a modern surgical trainer: perspectives from consultants and trainees in the United kingdom. J Surg Educ 68(3):202–208CrossRefPubMed
27.
28.
Vygotsky L (1978) Mind in society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
29.
Miskovic D, Ni M, Wyles SM et al (2012) Learning curve and case selection in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: systematic review and international multicenter analysis of 4852 cases. Dis Colon Rectum 55(12):1300–1310CrossRefPubMed
30.
Mackenzie H, Miskovic D, Ni M et al (2014) Risk prediction score in laparoscopic colorectal surgery training: experience from the English National Training Program. Ann Surg 261(2):338–344CrossRef
31.
Arora S, Aggarwal R, Sevdalis N et al (2010) Development and validation of mental practice as a training strategy for laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 24(1):179–187CrossRefPubMed
32.
Arora S, Aggarwal R, Sirimanna P et al (2011) Mental practice enhances surgical technical skills: a randomized controlled study. Ann Surg 253(2):265–270CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Development and implementation of the Structured Training Trainer Assessment Report (STTAR) in the English National Training Programme for laparoscopic colorectal surgery
Authors
Susannah M. Wyles
Danilo Miskovic
Zhifang Ni
Ara W. Darzi
Roland M. Valori
Mark G. Coleman
George B. Hanna
Publication date
01-03-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 3/2016
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4281-z

Other articles of this Issue 3/2016

Surgical Endoscopy 3/2016 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

10 cm H2O PEEP application in laparoscopic surgery and cerebral oxygenation: a comparative study with INVOS and FORESIGHT

OriginalPaper

Long-term knowledge retention following simulation-based training for electrosurgical safety: 1-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

OriginalPaper

Laparoscopic repair of hiatal hernia after minimally invasive esophagectomy

OriginalPaper

Factors associated with failure of enhanced recovery programs after laparoscopic colon cancer surgery: a single-center retrospective study

OriginalPaper

National disparities in minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer

OriginalPaper

A simple sensor calibration technique for estimating the 3D pose of endoscopic instruments