Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A decision-making learning and assessment tool in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aims

Making correct decisions is an integral part of surgical competency and excellence. The learning of this expert skill takes years to accumulate during training. To date there has not been an attempt to accelerate this learning process by developing a tool. In our present study we develop a self-appraisal computer software learning and assessment decision-making tool for laparoscopic surgery. It aims to accumulate several years of varied surgical experience, so the trainee can start to learn the complexities of surgical decision making in various types of cases. In this study we aim to validate the tool.

Methods

Three decision-making modules were developed in a computer program for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: knowledge of operation, operative surgical technique and operative task completion. The latter two modules were based on answering questions based on watching recorded live operations from a library of 100 recorded laparoscopic cholecystectomies of various grades. The questions were devised by two experienced surgeons with more than 14 years postgraduate surgical experience. To validate the tool two groups with varying surgical experience were assessed: intermediate and expert surgeons. These groups were determined by the number of laparoscopic cholecystectomies performed as well as of number of years of operative surgical experience.

Results

A total of 20 subjects were assessed, 12 intermediate and 8 experts surgeons. Mean time to perform the programme was 21 min (range 18–45 min). Using the Mann–Whitney test, p < 0.05, construct validity was demonstrated in the surgical technique and completion of task modules as well as the total combined scores.

Conclusions

Our computer-based decision-making learning tool for laparoscopic cholecystectomy seems to have face, content, concurrent and construct validities. Surgical decision making is a multifaceted process; by assessing how and why decisions are made effectively, focussed surgical training may be achieved. We aim in the future to determine if the self-appraisal decision-making tool improves or accelerates surgical training.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bogner M (ed) (2004) Misadventures in health care. LEA, Mahwah

  2. Marshall JC (2006) Surgical decision making: integrating evidence, inference and experience. Surg Clin North Am 86(1):201–215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Youngson GG (2000) Surgical competence: acquisition, measurement, & retention. Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baldwin PJ, Paiseley AM, Brown SP (1999) Consultant surgeons’ opinion of the skills required of basic surgical trainees. Br J Surg 86(8):1078–1082

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cuschieri A, Francis N, Crosby J, Hanna GB (2001) What do master surgeons think of surgical competence and revalidation? Am J Surg 182(2):110–116

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Spencer F (1978) Teaching and measuring surgical techniques: the technical evaluation of competence. Bull Amer Coll Surg 63:9–12

    Google Scholar 

  7. Sarker SK (2003) Courses, cadavers, and counsellors: reducing errors in the operating theatre. BMJ 327(7418):s109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sarker SK, Chang A, Vincent C, Darzi SA (2006) Development of assessing generic and specific technical skills in laparoscopic surgery. Am J Surg 191(2):238–244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sidhu RS, Grober ED, Musselman LJ, Reznick RK (2004) Assessing competency in surgery: where to begin? Surgery 135(1):6–20, Review

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Guerlain S, Brook Green K, Luniewski MS, Mersch TC, Mitchell BA, Reed Poole G, Adams R, Forrest Calland J, Bovbjerg V, Chekan EG (2003) Training anatomy recognition through repetitive viewing of laparoscopic surgery video clips. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. National Conference, Denver, Co

  11. Hastie R, Dawes RM (2001) Rational choice in an uncertain world: the psychology of judgement and decision making. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA

  12. Zsambok CE, Klein G (1997) Naturalistic decision making. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ

  13. Edwards W (1954) The theory of decision making. Psychol Bull 51:380–417

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Chapman GB, Sonnenberg FA (eds) (2000) Decision making in health care: theory psychology, and applications. Cambridge University Press, New York

  15. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1974) Judgements under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Janis IL, Mann L (1977) Emergency decision making: a theoretical analysis of responses to disaster warnings. J Human Stress 3(2):35–45

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Sutton GC (1989) Computer-aided diagnosis: a review. Br J Surg 76(1):82–85

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Orasanu J (2005) Crew collaboration in space: a naturalistic decision-making perspective. Aviat Space Environ Med 76(6 Suppl):B1 54–63, Review

    Google Scholar 

  19. Klein G (1998) The Recognition-primed decision model. In sources of power: how people make decisions. MIT Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dreyfus HL, Dreyfus SE, Athanasiou T (1986) Mind over machine: the power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sarker SK, Chang A, Darzi A, Vincent C (2006) Decision Making in Laparoscopic Surgery. Presented at the 13th EAES annual meeting. Venice, Italy, June 2005. Surg Endosc 20:s10

  22. Hammond K. Judgements under stress. Oxford Press

  23. Clarke JR (1989) Decision making in surgical practice. World J Surg 13(3):245–251

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Dominguez CO (2001) Expertise and metacognition in laparoscopic surgery. Human Factors Ergon Soc 45:1298–1304

    Google Scholar 

  25. Satish U, Streufert S, Marshall R., Smith JS, Powers S, Gorman P, Krummel T (2001) Strategic management simulation is a novel way to measure resident competencies. Am J Surg 181(6):557–561

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Paisley AM, Baldwin P, Paterson-Brown S (2001) Feasibility, reliability and validity of a new assessment form for use with basic surgical trainees. Am J Surg 182(1):24–29

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Brothers TE, Cox MH, Robison JG, Elliott BM, Nietert P (2004) Prospective decision analysis modeling indicates that clinical decisions in vascular surgery often fail to maximize patient expected utility. J Surg Res 120(2):278–287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Salem L, Veenstra DL, Sullivan SD, Flum DR (2004) The timing of elective colectomy in diverticulitis: a decision analysis. J Am Coll Surg 199(6):904–912

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Larson JL, Williams RG (2005) Feasibility, reliability and validity of an operative performance rating system for evaluating surgery residents. Surgery 138(4):640–647; discussion 647–649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Servais EL, Lamorte WW, Agarwal S, Moschetti W, Mallipattu SK, Moutlon SL (2006) Teaching surgical decision-making: an interactive, web-based approach. J Surg Res 134(1):102–106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Statement of Disclosure

None declared

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Department of Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK

    Sudip K. Sarker & Saif Rehman

  2. 89 Cornwall Gardens, London, SW7 4AX, UK

    Sudip K. Sarker

  3. Clinical Safety Research Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Meera Ladwa & Charles Vincent

  4. Department of Surgery, Kings College Hospital, London, UK

    Avril Chang

Authors
  1. Sudip K. Sarker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Saif Rehman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Meera Ladwa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Avril Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Charles Vincent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sudip K. Sarker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sarker, S.K., Rehman, S., Ladwa, M. et al. A decision-making learning and assessment tool in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 23, 197–203 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-9774-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-9774-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation