Advertisement

A Taxonomy Guide for Surgical Simulation

  • Aimee Gardner
  • James N. Lau
  • Sara Kim
Chapter
Part of the Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation book series (CHS)

Abstract

The lack of a common language within surgical simulation can not only create confusion but can also impede efforts to coherently describe data, techniques, assessment, and research. The goal of this chapter is to present a comprehensive taxonomy of terms (Fig. 1) used within surgical simulation to guide those embarking on new simulation endeavors and to serve as a reference for those already in the trenches. Although best efforts were made to provide the most definitive description of each term, we do acknowledge that many terms referenced are in various stages of development. We provide references for further reading to guide the reader in additional understanding of each concept.

Keywords

Taxonomy Terminology Surgery Simulation Education 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Mr. Todd Gardner for his assistance with the creation of Fig. 1.

References

  1. 1.
    Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations and Joint Commission Accreditation Hospital. Comprehensive accreditation manual for hospitals: the official handbook 2008; Joint Commission Resources.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nasca TJ, Philibert I, Brigham T, Flynn TC. The next GME accreditation system—rationale and benefits. New Engl J Med. 2010;366:1051–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kelly CR. What is adaptive training? Human Fac. 1969;11:547–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Knowles MS. Andragogy in action: applying modern principles of adult education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1984.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Knowles MS, Holton EF, Swanson RA. The adult learner: the definitive classic in adult education and human resource development: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2014.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hurtz GM, Hertz NR. How many raters should be used for establishing cutoff scores with the Angoff method? A generalizability theory study. Educ Psychol Meas. 1999;59:885–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaufman DM, Mann KV, Muijtjens AM, van der Vleuten CP. A comparison of standard-setting procedures for an OSCE in undergraduate medical education. Acad Med. 2000;75:267–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Angelo T, Cross KP. Classroom assessment techniques a handbook for college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vera AM, Russo MA, Mohsin A, Tsuda S. Augmented reality telementoring (ART) platform: a randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy of a new surgical education technology. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:3467–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Botden SMBI, de Hingh IHJT, Jakimowicz JJ. Suturing training in augmented reality: gaining proficiency in suturing skills faster. Surg Endosc. 2009;9:2131–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barsom EZ, Graafland M, Schijven MP. Systematic review on the effectiveness of augmented reality applications in medical training. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:4174.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4800-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Patel V, Aggarwal R, Cohen D, Taylor D, Darzi A. Implementation of an interactive virtual-world simulation for structured surgeon assessment of clinical scenarios. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217:270–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rudolph JW, Simon R, Raemer DB, Eppich WJ. Debriefing as formative assessment: closing performance gaps in medical education. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15:1010–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Scheuneman J. A method of assessing bias in test items. J Educ Measur. 1979;16:143–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bloom BS. Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longmans Green; 1964.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Antonoff MB, Swanson JA, Green CA, Mann BD, Maddaus MA, D’Cunha J. The significant impact of a competency-based preparatory course for senior medical students entering surgical residency. Acad Med. 2012;87:308–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Malangoni MA. Maintenance of certification. Adv Surg. 2016;50:105–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R, MacRae H, Murnaghan J, Hutchison C, Brown M. Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Brit J Surg. 1997;84:273–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Faulkner H, Regehr G, Martin J, Reznick R. Validation of an objective structured assessment of technical skill for surgical residents. Acad Med. 1996;71(12):1363–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bonrath EM, Dedy NJ, Gordon LE, Grantcharov TP. Comprehensive surgical coaching enhances surgical skill in the operating room: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2015;262:205–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stefanidis D, Anderson-Montoya B, Higgins RV, Pimentel ME, Rowland P, Scarborough MO, Higgins D. Developing a coaching mechanism for practicing surgeons. Surg. 2016;160:536–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sweller J. Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Sci. 1988;12:257–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sweller J, Van Merriënboer JG, Paas F. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ Psychol Rev. 1988;10:251–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sweller J. Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive load. Educ Psychol Rev. 2010;22:123–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Beth Crandall B, Klein GA, Hoffman RR. Working minds: a practitioner’s guide to cognitive task analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Andrade C. Examination of participant flow in the CONSORT diagram can improve the understanding of the generalizability of study results. J Clin Psychiatry. 2015;76(11):e1469–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
    Englander R, Cameron T, Ballard AJ, Dodge J, Bull J, Aschenbrener CA. Toward a common taxonomy of competency domains for the health professions and competencies for physicians. Acad Med. 2013;88:1088–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Frank JR, Snell LS, Cate OT, Holmboe ES, Carraccio C, Swing SR, Harris P, Glasgow NJ, Campbell C, Dath D, Harden RM. Competency-based medical education: theory to practice. Med Teach. 2010;32:638–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Higgins RS, Bridges J, Burke JM, O’Donnell MA, Cohen NM, Wilkes SB. Implementing the ACGME general competencies in a cardiothoracic surgery residency program using 360-degree feedback. Annals Thorac Surg. 2010;77:12–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lin DT, Park J, Liebert CA, Lau JN. Validity evidence for surgical improvement of clinical knowledge ops: a novel gaming platform to assess surgical decision making. Am J Surg. 2015;209:79–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cassel CK, Holmboe ES. Credentialing and public accountability: a central role for board certification. JAMA. 2006;295:939–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kaplan LJ, Shaw AD. Standards for education and credentialing in critical care medicine. JAMA. 2011;305:296–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    France DJ, Leming-Lee S, Jackson T, Feistritzer NR, Higgins MS. An observational analysis of surgical team compliance with perioperative safety practices after crew resource management training. Am J Surg. 2008;195:546–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hughes KM, Benenson RS, Krichten AE, Clancy KD, Ryan JP, Hammond C. A crew resource management program tailored to trauma resuscitation improves team behavior and communication. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;219:545–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Salas E, Wilson KA, Burke CS, et al. Does crew resource management work? An update, an extension, and some critical needs. Hum Factors. 2006;48:392–412.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fanning RM, Gaba DM. The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. SSH. 2007;2(2):115–25.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ericsson KA, Krampe RT, Tesch-Römer C. The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol Rev. 2003;100:363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Crochet P, Aggarwal R, Dubb SS, Ziprin P, Rajaretnam N, Grantcharov T, Ericsson KA, Darzi A. Deliberate practice on a virtual reality laparoscopic simulator enhances the quality of surgical technical skills. Annals Surg. 2011;253:1216–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kwon YH, Kwon JW, Lee MH. Effectiveness of motor sequential learning according to practice schedules in healthy adults; distributed practice versus massed practice. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015;27:769–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Choi W, Dyens O, Schijven MP, Chan T, Dev P, Fellander-Tsai L, Ferland M, Kato P, Lajoie S, Lau JN, Mancini M, Montonaro M, Pineau J, Aggarwal R. Engagement and learning through simulation-based initiatives: recommendations of the Simnovate pervasive learning domain group. Submitted to Academic Medicine.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kolb AY, Kolb DA. Learning styles and learning spaces: enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Acad Manag Learn Educ. 2009;4:193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kolb DA. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development: Prentice Hall; 2014.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Burns CL. Using debriefing and feedback in simulation to improve participant performance: an educator’s perspective. Int J Med Educ. 2015;6:118.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Voyer S, Hatala R. Debriefing and feedback: two sides of the same coin? Simul Healthc. 2015;10:67–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Taras M. Assessment–summative and formative–some theoretical reflections. Brit J Educ Studies. 2005;53:466–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Shepard LA. Linking formative assessment to scaffolding. Educ Lead. 2005;63:66–70.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Boston C. The concept of formative assessment. ERIC Digest. 2002;8:1–4.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Deterding S. Gamification: designing for motivation. Interactions. 2012;19:14–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kerfoot BP, Kissane N. The use of gamification to boost residents’ engagement in simulation training. JAMA Surg. 2014;149:1208–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Dierdorff EC, Surface EA, Brown KG. Frame-of-reference training effectiveness: effects of goal orientation and self-efficacy on affective, cognitive, skill-based, and transfer outcomes. J Appl Psychol. 2010;95:1181.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Gardner AK, Russo MA, Jabbour II, Kosemund M, Scott DJ. Frame-of-reference training for simulation-based intraoperative communication assessment. Am J Surg. 2016;212:548–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Okamura AM. Haptic feedback in robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery. Curr Opin Urol. 2009;19:102–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Panait L, Akkary E, Bell RL, Roberts KE, Dudrick SJ, Duffy AJ. The role of haptic feedback in laparoscopic simulation training. J Surg Res. 2009;156:312–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Epstein R. Assessment in medical education. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:387–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Norcini JJ, McKinley DW. Assessment methods in medical education. Teach Teach Educ. 2007;23:239–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Pizzi L, Goldfarb NI, Nash DB. Procedures for obtaining informed consent. [Accessed March 25 2009]; Making healthcare safer: a critical analysis of patient safety practices, evidence Report/Technology Assessment No 43. 2001 (Chapter 48). Available from: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/ptsafety/.
  58. 58.
    The American Psychological Association, Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct, 2016. http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Gardner AK, Ahmed RA, George RL, Frey J. In situ simulation to assess workplace attitudes and effectiveness in a new facility. Simul Healthc. 2013;6:351–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Steinemann S, Berg B, Skinner A, DiTulio A, Anzelon K, Terada K, Oliver C, Ho HC, Speck C. In situ, multidisciplinary simulation-based teamwork training improves early trauma care. J Surg Educ. 2011;68:472–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Patterson MD, Geis GL, Falcone GA, LeMaster T, Wears RL. In situ simulation: detection of safety threats and teamwork training in a high risk emergency department. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22:468–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Stryjewski TP, Kalish BT, Silverman B, Lehmann LS. The impact of institutional review boards (IRBs) on clinical innovation: a survey of investigators and IRB members. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2015;10:481–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kamdar G, Kessler DO, Tilt L, Srivastava G, Khanna K, Chang TP, Balmer D, Auerbach M. Qualitative evaluation of just-in-time simulation-based learning. The learner’s perspective. Sim Healthc. 2013;8:43–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kern DE, Thomas PA, Hughes MT. Development for medical education: a six-step approach. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    World Health Organization. Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice: a health professions networks, nursing, and midwifery, human resources for health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Anderson DK. How can educators use simulation applications to teach and assess surgical judgment? Acad Med. 2012;87:934–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Pugh CM, DaRosa DA, Santacaterina S, Clark RE. Faculty evaluation of simulation-based modules for assessment of intraoperative decision making. Surgery. 2011;149:534–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Madani A, Watanabe Y, Bilgic E, Pucher PH, Vassiliou MC, Aggarwal R, et al. Measuring intraoperative decision-making during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: validity evidence for a novel interactive web-based assessment tool. Surg Endosc. 2016;31:1203.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5091-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kirkpatrick DL. Evaluation of training. In: Craig RL, editor. Training and development handbook: a guide to human resource development. New York: McGraw Hill; 1976.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Bates R. A critical analysis of evaluation practice: the Kirkpatrick model and the principle of beneficence. Eval Program Plann. 2004;27:341–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
  72. 72.
    Livingston JA. Metacognition: an overview. 2003. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED474273.pdf.
  73. 73.
    Dominguez CO. Expertise and metacognition in laparoscopic surgery: a field study. Human Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet. 2001;45:1298–302.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Pontefract D. Flat army: creating a connected and engaged organization. New Jersey: Wiley; 2013.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Dong Y, Suri HS, Cook DA, Kashani KB, Mullon JJ, Enders FT, Rubin O, Dunn WF. Simulation-based objective assessment discerns clinical proficiency in central line placement: a construct validation. Chest. 2010;137:1050–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Li X, Wang J, Ferguson MK. Competence versus mastery: the time course for developing proficiency in video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147:1150–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Wayne DB, Butter J, Siddall VJ, Fudala MJ, Wade LD, Feinglass J, McGaghie WC. Mastery learning of advanced cardiac life support skills by internal medicine residents using simulation technology and deliberate practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;21:251–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Edmondson AC. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q. 1999;44(2):350–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Krueger RA. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1994.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Merriam SB. Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Revised and expanded from case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 1998.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Hunt EA, Duval-Arnould JM, Nelson-McMillan KL, Bradshaw J, Diener-West M, Perretta JS, Shilkofski NA. Pediatric resident resuscitation skills improve after ‘rapid cycle deliberate practice’ training. Resuscitation. 2014;85:945–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    West MD, Daniel DG, Opler M, Wise-Rankovic A, Kalali A. Consensus recommendations on rater training and certification. Innov Clin Neurosci. 2014;11:10–3.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Gas BL, Buckarma EH, Mohan M, Pandian TK, Farley DR. Objective assessment of general surgery residents followed by remediation. J Surg Educ. 2016;73:e71.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.07.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Hauer KE, Ciccone A, Henzel TR, Katsufrakis P, Miller SH, Norcross WA, Papadakis MA, Irby DM. Remediation of the deficiencies of physicians across the continuum from medical school to practice: a thematic review of the literature. Acad Med. 2009;84:1822–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
  86. 86.
    Cannon-Bowers JA, Bowers C, Procci K. Optimizing learning in surgical simulations: guidelines from the science of learning and human performance. Surg Clin N Am. 2010;90:583–603.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Mouaheb H, Fahli A, Moussetad M, Eljamali S. The serious game: what educational benefits? Procedia Social Behav Sci. 2012;46:5502–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    TeamSTEPPS Fundamentals Course: Module 5. Situation Monitoring. Content last reviewed March 2014. Agency for healthcare research and quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.ahrq.gov/teamstepps/instructor/fundamentals/module5/igsitmonitor.html.
  89. 89.
    Perruchet P. The effect of spaced practice on explicit and implicit memory. Brit J Psychol. 1989;80:113–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Salas E, Dickinson TL, Converse SA, Tannenbaum SI. Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In: Swezy RW, Salas E, editors. Teams: their training and performance. Norwood: Ablex; 1992.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Parmelee D, Michaelsen LK, Cook S, Hudes PD. Team-based learning: a practical guide: AMEE guide no. 65. Med Teach. 2012;34:e275–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Burgess AW, McGregor DM, Mellis CM. Applying established guidelines to team-based learning programs in medical schools: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2014;89:678–88.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Mayer CM, Cluff L, Win WT, Willis TS, Stafford RE, et al. Evaluating efforts to optimize TeamSTEPPS implementation in surgical and pediatric intensive care units. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2011;37:365–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Meier AH, Boehler ML, McDowell CM, Schwind C, Markwell S, Roberts NK, Sanfey H. A surgical simulation curriculum for senior medical students based on TeamSTEPPS. Arch Surg. 2012;147:761–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Salas E, Rosen MA, Burke CS, Goodwin GF. The wisdom of collectives in organizations: an update of the teamwork competencies. In: Salas E, Goodwin GF, Burke CS, editors. Team effectiveness in complex organizations. New York: Taylor & Francis; 2009.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Gardner AK, Hull L. The science and training of expert operating room teams. In: Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation: Surgery and Surgical Subspecialties. Cham: Springer International Publishing. p. 143–51.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Petrusa ER, Scalese RJ. A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003–2009. Med Educ. 2010;44:50–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Norman G, Dore K, Grierson L. The minimal relationship between simulation fidelity and transfer of learning. Med Educ. 2012;46:636–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Perkins DN, Salomon G. Transfer of learning. Int Encycl Educ. 1992;2:6452–7.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Aggarwal R, Ward J, Balasundaram I, Sains P, Athanasiou T, Darzi A. Proving the effectiveness of virtual reality simulation for training in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg. 2007;246:771–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Gallagher AG, Ritter EM, Champion H, Higgins G, Fried MP, Moses G, Smith DS, Satava RM. Virtual reality simulation for the operating room: proficiency-based training as a paradigm shift in surgical skills training. Ann Surg. 2005;241:364–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Grantcharov TP, Kristiansen VB, Bendix J, Bardram L, Rosenberg J, Funch-Jensen P. Brit J Surg. 2004;91:146–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association; 1999.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Vygotsky LS. Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1978.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Kneebone RL, Scott W, Darzi A, Horrocks M. Simulation and clinical practice: strengthening the relationship. Med Educ. 2004;38:1095–102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Health Professions, Department of Surgery, Baylor College of MedicineHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Washington, School of MedicineSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations