Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Malpractice carrier underwrites Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery training and testing: a benchmark for patient safety

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) is a validated program developed by the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) to educate and assess competency in minimally invasive surgery (MIS). This study reports the first malpractice carrier–sponsored FLS course for surgeons in practice underwritten by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company of Harvard’s Risk Management Foundation (CRICO/RMF). The study investigated the participating surgeons’ pattern of MIS skills acquisition, subjective laparoscopic comfort level, operative activity, and perception of the FLS role in surgical education, credentialing, and patient safety.

Methods

A 1-day postgraduate continuous medical education (CME) course consisted of didactic presentations of the leading MIS faculty, proctored FLS hands-on training, psychomotor testing, and cognitive computer-based examination. Voluntary anonymous pre- and postcourse surveys were distributed to the participants at registration and at completion of both the didactic teaching and the skills modules of the program.

Results

The course was attended by 37 practicing surgeons in the Harvard system, and 86% of the survey forms were returned. The major driving forces for attending the course were directive from the chief/chairman (50%), improvement in MIS didactic knowledge (56%), and the belief that FLS would become a standard such as advanced trauma life support (ATLS), advanced cardiac life support (ACLS), or the like (53%). Surgeons reported that the FLS exam content was appropriate (Likert 4.41 ± 0.91) and that mastery of the course material would improve safety (Likert 4.13 ± 0.79) and technical knowledge of MIS (Likert 4.03 ± 1.00).

Conclusions

This unique cooperative effort between a liability carrier, a professional surgical society, and proactive surgeons should be considered a model for advancing competency and patient safety. The survey results indicate a positive view of FLS in surgical training, safety, and MIS education.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) (2007) Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) Program. SAGES, Los Angeles, CA

  2. Peters JH, Fried GM, Swanstrom LL et al (2004) Development and validation of a comprehensive program of education and assessment of the basic fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery. Surgery 135(1):21–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Swanstrom LL, Fried GM, Hoffman KI, Soper NJ (2006) Beta test results of a new system assessing competence in laparoscopic surgery. J Am Coll Surg 202(1):62–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fried GM, Feldman LS, Vassiliou MC et al (2004) Proving the value of simulation in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg 240(3):518–525 (discussion 525–528)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Feldman LS, Hagarty SE, Ghitulescu G et al (2004) Relationship between objective assessment of technical skills and subjective in-training evaluations in surgical residents. J Am Coll Surg 198(1):105–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Stefanidis D, Sierra R, Korndorffer JR Jr et al (2006) Intensive continuing medical education course training on simulators results in proficiency for laparoscopic suturing. Am J Surg 191(1):23–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ritter EM, Scott DJ (2007) Design of a proficiency-based skills training curriculum for the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery. Surg Innov 14(2):107–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fraser SA, Klassen DR, Feldman LS et al (2003) Evaluating laparoscopic skills: setting the pass/fail score for the MISTELS system. Surg Endosc 17(6):964–967

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. McCluney AL, Vassiliou MC, Kaneva PA et al (2007) FLS simulator performance predicts intraoperative laparoscopic skill. Surg Endosc 21(11):1991–1995

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Stefanidis D, Korndorffer JR Jr, Markley S et al (2006) Proficiency maintenance: impact of ongoing simulator training on laparoscopic skill retention. J Am Coll Surg 202(4):599–603

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Scott DJ, Ritter EM, Tesfay ST et al (2008) Certification pass rate of 100% for fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery skills after proficiency-based training. Surg Endosc 22(8):1887–1893

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fried GM (2006) Lessons from the surgical experience with simulators: incorporation into training and utilization in determining competency. Gastrointest Endosc Clin North Am 16(3):425–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fraser SA, Feldman LS, Stanbridge D, Fried GM (2005) Characterizing the learning curve for a basic laparoscopic drill. Surg Endosc 19(12):1572–1578

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Dauster B, Steinberg AP, Vassiliou MC et al (2005) Validity of the MISTELS simulator for laparoscopy training in urology. J Endourol 19(5):541–545

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Derossis AM, Antoniuk M, Fried GM (1999) Evaluation of laparoscopic skills: a 2-year follow-up during residency training. Can J Surg 42(4):293–296

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Derossis AM, Bothwell J, Sigman HH, Fried GM (1998) The effect of practice on performance in a laparoscopic simulator. Surg Endosc 12(9):1117–1120

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Derossis AM, Fried GM, Abrahamowicz M et al (1998) Development of a model for training and evaluation of laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg 175(6):482–487

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Fried GM, Derossis AM, Bothwell J, Sigman HH (1999) Comparison of laparoscopic performance in vivo with performance measured in a laparoscopic simulator. Surg Endosc 13(11):1077–1181 (discussion 1082)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Vassiliou MC, Ghitulescu GA, Feldman LS et al (2006) The MISTELS program to measure technical skill in laparoscopic surgery: evidence for reliability. Surg Endosc 20(5):744–747

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Feldman LS, Sherman V, Fried GM (2004) Using simulators to assess laparoscopic competence: ready for widespread use? Surgery 135(1):28–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Fried GM (2005) The Steinberg-Bernstein Centre for minimally invasive surgery at McGill University. Surg Innov 12(4):345–348

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gunther S, Rosen J, Hannaford B, Sinanan M (2007) The red DRAGON: a multimodality system for simulation and training in minimally invasive surgery. Stud Health Technol Inform 125:149–154

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hsu KE, Man FY, Gizicki RA et al (2008) Experienced surgeons can do more than one thing at a time: effect of distraction on performance of a simple laparoscopic and cognitive task by experienced and novice surgeons. Surg Endosc 22(1):196–201

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Keyser EJ, Derossis AM, Antoniuk M et al (2000) A simplified simulator for the training and evaluation of laparoscopic skills. Surg Endosc 14(2):149–153

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Korndorffer JR Jr, Dunne JB, Sierra R et al (2005) Simulator training for laparoscopic suturing using performance goals translates to the operating room. J Am Coll Surg 201(1):23–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ritter EM, Kindelan TW, Michael C et al (2007) Concurrent validity of augmented reality metrics applied to the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS). Surg Endosc 21(8):1441–1445

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Powers KA, Rehrig ST, Irias N et al (2008) Simulated laparoscopic operating room crisis: an approach to enhance the surgical team performance. Surg Endosc 22(4):885–900

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Stefanidis D, Acker C, Heniford BT (2008) Proficiency-based laparoscopic simulator training leads to improved operating room skill that is resistant to decay. Surg Innov 15(1):69–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Stefanidis D, Korndorffer JR Jr, Black FW et al (2006) Psychomotor testing predicts rate of skill acquisition for proficiency-based laparoscopic skills training. Surgery 140(2):252–262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Stefanidis D, Korndorffer JR Jr, Scott DJ (2007) Psychomotor testing predicts rate of skill acquisition for proficiency-based laparoscopic skills training. Surgery 141(6):831–832

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Stefanidis D, Korndorffer JR Jr, Markley S et al (2007) Closing the gap in operative performance between novices and experts: does harder mean better for laparoscopic simulator training? J Am Coll Surg 205(2):307–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Stefanidis D, Korndorffer JR Jr, Sierra R et al (2005) Skill retention following proficiency-based laparoscopic simulator training. Surgery 138(2):165–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Stefanidis D, Scerbo MW, Korndorffer JR Jr, Scott DJ (2007) Redefining simulator proficiency using automaticity theory. Am J Surg 193(4):502–506

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rehrig ST, Powers K, Jones DB (2008) Integrating simulation in surgery as a teaching tool and credentialing standard. J Gastrointest Surg 12(2):222–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Avgerinos DV, Goodell KH, Waxberg S et al (2005) Comparison of the sensitivity of physical and virtual laparoscopic surgical training simulators to the user’s level of experience. Surg Endosc 19(9):1211–1215

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Fried GM (2008) FLS Assessment of competency using simulated laparoscopic tasks. J Gastrointest Surg 12(2):210–212

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Parker WH, Johns A, Hellige J (2007) Avoiding complications of laparoscopic surgery: lessons from cognitive science and crew resource management. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14(3):379–388

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Tsuda S, Scott D, Doyle J, Jones DB (2009) Surgical skills training and simulation. Curr Probl Surg 46(4):261–372

    Google Scholar 

  39. Fried GM (2008) FLS assessment of competency using simulated laparoscopic tasks. J Gastrointest Surg 12(2):210–212

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Holzman RS, Cooper JB, Gaba DM et al (1995) Anesthesia crisis resource management: real-life simulation training in operating room crises. J Clin Anesth 7(8):675–687

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Blum RH, Raemer DB, Carroll JS et al (2004) Crisis resource management training for an anaesthesia faculty: a new approach to continuing education. Med Educ 38(1):45–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Jenkins RC, Lemak CH (2007) Innovative teaching for health law: a case study of a hospital medical malpractice lawsuit simulation. J Health Adm Educ 24(1):43–57

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Raborn GW, Carter RM (1999) Using simulation to evaluate clinical competence after impairment. J Can Dent Assoc 65(7):384–386

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Berry W (2006) Surgical malpractice: myths and realities. J Med Pract Manage 22(1):50–51

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Regenbogen SE, Greenberg CC, Studdert DM et al (2007) Patterns of technical error among surgical malpractice claims: an analysis of strategies to prevent injury to surgical patients. Ann Surg 246(5):705–711

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Dunkin B, Adrales GL, Apelgren K, Mellinger JD (2007) Surgical simulation: a current review. Surg Endosc 21(3):357–366

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Singh H, Thomas EJ, Petersen LA, Studdert DM (2007) Medical errors involving trainees: a study of closed malpractice claims from 5 insurers. Arch Intern Med 167(19):2030–2036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R et al (1997) Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg 84(2):273–278

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Satava RM (2004) Disruptive visions: surgical education. Surg Endosc 18(5):779–781

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 330 Brookline Avenue, Boston, MA, 02215, USA

    Alexandre Y. Derevianko, Mark P. Callery, David Fobert, Noel Irias & Daniel B. Jones

  2. Cambridge Health Alliance, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Steven D. Schwaitzberg & Limaris Barrios

  3. University of Nevada School of Medicine, Los Vegas, NV, USA

    Shawn Tsuda

  4. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    David C. Brooks

  5. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    David W. Rattner

Authors
  1. Alexandre Y. Derevianko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steven D. Schwaitzberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shawn Tsuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Limaris Barrios
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. David C. Brooks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mark P. Callery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. David Fobert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  8. Noel Irias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  9. David W. Rattner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  10. Daniel B. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel B. Jones.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Derevianko, A.Y., Schwaitzberg, S.D., Tsuda, S. et al. Malpractice carrier underwrites Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery training and testing: a benchmark for patient safety. Surg Endosc 24, 616–623 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-009-0617-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-009-0617-x

Keywords