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

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 lap...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Surgical endoscopy 2016-03, Vol.30 (3), p.993-1003
Hauptverfasser: Wyles, Susannah M., Miskovic, Danilo, Ni, Zhifang, Darzi, Ara W., Valori, Roland M., Coleman, Mark G., Hanna, George B.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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  = 
ISSN:0930-2794
1432-2218
DOI:10.1007/s00464-015-4281-z