Learning benefits of live surgery and semi-live surgery in urology—informing the debate with results from the International Meeting of Reconstructive Urology (IMORU) VIII

Abstract

Purpose To analyze the perceived learning opportunities of participants of the International Meeting on Reconstructive Urology (IMORU) VIII for both live surgery demonstrations (LSD) and semi-live surgery demonstrations (SLSD). Safety and educational efficacy of LSD and SLSD at live surgery events (LSE) have been debated extensively, however, objective data comparing learning benefits are missing. Methods We conducted a detailed survey, which employed the Kirkpatrick model, a well-established assessment method of training models, to investigate participants preferences as well as the learning benefit of LSE. Furthermore, we employed an audience response system and the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS), a well-established assessment method of surgery skills, to let our participants rate the perceived learning opportunity of LSD and SLSD. Results Of 229 participants at the IMORU VIII, 39.7% returned our questionnaires. 90% stated that they prefer LSD. On all levels of Kirkpatrick’s training evaluation model, the IMORU received high ratings, suggesting a high learning benefit. For the assessment of OSATS, a total of 23 surgical cases were evaluable. For all six utilized items, LSD scored significantly better ratings than SLSD. Conclusion Our study suggests that there is still a rationale for LSD, as participants attributed a statistically significant higher learning benefit to LSD over SLDS. Evaluation of the survey showed that for LSE such as the IMORU VIII, a high learning benefit can be expected. Considering that most of our participants are active surgeons with high caseloads, their opinion on the educational value of LSE is of high relevance.

The Kirkpatrick model for training evaluation: bibliometric analysis after 60 years (1959–2020)

“…The first group included studies providing general descriptions of using the model, such as its usefulness (Frye and Hemmer, 2012;Ghorbandoost et al, 2018;Kang et al, 2015); its effectiveness for organizational performance improvement (Pearlstein, 2010); its ability to find the weaknesses and problems of training courses and attempt to fix them (Ghorbandoost et al, 2018); its ease of implementation (Fadhilah et al, 2018); the fact that it is a well-established assessment method for training models (Schuettfort et al, 2020); and the fact that it has stood the test of time (Desilets, 2018).…”