Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Examination of participant preferences in the design and delivery of simulation-based education programmes
  1. Camila Vega Vega1,2,
  2. Hannah Claire Gostlow1,2,
  3. Nicholas Marlow1,2,
  4. Wendy Babidge1,2,
  5. Guy Maddern1,2
  1. 1 Division of Surgery, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University of Adelaide, Woodville, South Australia, Australia
  2. 2 Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures – Surgical (ASERNIP-S), Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, North Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Guy Maddern, Division of Surgery, The University of Adelaide, Woodville South, SA 5005, Australia; guy.maddern{at}

Statistics from

Surgical education has changed; the classical ‘see one, do one, teach one’ philosophy has become increasingly hard to practice. Simulation-based education (SBE) has evolved as an effective tool to address the learning needs of healthcare professionals while maintaining the health and safety of patients. The quality and size of published evidence showing the utility of SBE and its role in the acquisition of both technical and non-technical surgical skills continues to increase. However, although many simulated skills courses have proven to be beneficial,1 2 the optimum format for the delivery of laparoscopic simulation training is still unclear.

To better understand the role of training formats in SBE, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) implemented the Laparoscopic Simulation Skills Program (LSSP). The aim of the LSSP was to determine the best format for delivery of simulated laparoscopic skills training. The LSSP delivered a technical skills training programme in metropolitan and regional Australia. As part of this programme, a questionnaire was used to record participants’ perceptions on the utility of laparoscopic simulation training, barriers and motivators for attending training, as well as preferences for SBE delivery. The results of this survey are presented in this article to examine how participants’ opinions and choices direct their participation in the programme.

A postcourse questionnaire was …

View Full Text


  • Contributors CVV and HCG: conception of the work, acquisition and interpretation of data, drafting and critically revising, final approval and accountable for work. NM: conception of the work, interpretation of data, drafting and critically revising, final approval and accountable for work. WB and GM: conception of the work, critically revising, final approval and accountable for work.

  • Funding This work was supported by the James and Diana Ramsay Foundation, ‘James Ramsay Project Grant’.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethics approval Multisite ethics approval was granted by the Human Research Ethics Committee at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital (HREC/15/TQEH/76); where this approval was not recognised, local site approvals were obtained. Research Governance Approval was also obtained from all hospitals prior to site access.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.