A cross-sectional pilot study to investigate patient attitudes and perception regarding the use of real time digital recording of urological procedures for research and teaching purposes
Identifieur interne : 003963 ( Ncbi/Merge ); précédent : 003962; suivant : 003964A cross-sectional pilot study to investigate patient attitudes and perception regarding the use of real time digital recording of urological procedures for research and teaching purposes
Auteurs : Gary Sharp [Royaume-Uni] ; Giorgio Mazzon [Royaume-Uni] ; Ranjan Thilagarajah [Royaume-Uni]Source :
- Annals of Medicine and Surgery [ 2049-0801 ] ; 2015.
Abstract
Little conclusive evidence exists regarding the best way to educate and evaluate skill acquisition of advanced surgical trainees, despite it being recognised as one of the most important aspects of training. Many laparoscopic trainers have been produced with complex engineering at great cost, but, there seems to be a reluctance to use the most precious entity available to us; the patient. We thus propose the use of real time digital recording of urological procedures for research and teaching purposes. This study was prompted by the lack of literature regarding such issues.
A 19 question questionnaire was circulated at a single urology out-patient department (Essex, England) over a 6 month period to evaluate attitudes and perceptions of urological patients on potentially having their procedure digitally recorded for educational and research purposes. 11 patients declined, 187 questionnaires were included in the final analysis.
Male patients are more willing to consent than female patients. Older patients resulted to have a higher propensity in being recorded for medical teaching. Greater than 50% believe being recorded is intrusive but the majority do not think privacy is an issue. Lastly, the vast majority require a formal debrief post operatively.
Our results show that a percentage of the public are potentially willing to be digitally recorded but many financial and social barriers exist. We have also highlighted areas of possible future research, namely the reluctance behind young urology patients to consent and questions regarding how best to educate possible study participants to ensure proper
Url:
DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2015.04.004
PubMed: 26005568
PubMed Central: 4434208
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
- to stream Pmc, to step Corpus: 001B71
- to stream Pmc, to step Curation: 001B71
- to stream Pmc, to step Checkpoint: 000778
Links to Exploration step
PMC:4434208Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">A cross-sectional pilot study to investigate patient attitudes and perception regarding the use of real time digital recording of urological procedures for research and teaching purposes</title><author><name sortKey="Sharp, Gary" sort="Sharp, Gary" uniqKey="Sharp G" first="Gary" last="Sharp">Gary Sharp</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><nlm:aff id="aff1">Department of Urology, Broomfield Hospital, Court Road, Broomfield, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 7ET, UK</nlm:aff><country xml:lang="fr">Royaume-Uni</country><wicri:regionArea>Department of Urology, Broomfield Hospital, Court Road, Broomfield, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 7ET</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>Essex CM1 7ET</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Mazzon, Giorgio" sort="Mazzon, Giorgio" uniqKey="Mazzon G" first="Giorgio" last="Mazzon">Giorgio Mazzon</name><affiliation wicri:level="3"><nlm:aff id="aff2">University College Hospital, Endourology Unit, London, UK</nlm:aff><country xml:lang="fr">Royaume-Uni</country><wicri:regionArea>University College Hospital, Endourology Unit, London</wicri:regionArea><placeName><settlement type="city">Londres</settlement><region type="country">Angleterre</region><region type="région" nuts="1">Grand Londres</region></placeName></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Thilagarajah, Ranjan" sort="Thilagarajah, Ranjan" uniqKey="Thilagarajah R" first="Ranjan" last="Thilagarajah">Ranjan Thilagarajah</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><nlm:aff id="aff1">Department of Urology, Broomfield Hospital, Court Road, Broomfield, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 7ET, UK</nlm:aff><country xml:lang="fr">Royaume-Uni</country><wicri:regionArea>Department of Urology, Broomfield Hospital, Court Road, Broomfield, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 7ET</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>Essex CM1 7ET</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PMC</idno><idno type="pmid">26005568</idno><idno type="pmc">4434208</idno><idno type="url">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4434208</idno><idno type="RBID">PMC:4434208</idno><idno type="doi">10.1016/j.amsu.2015.04.004</idno><date when="2015">2015</date><idno type="wicri:Area/Pmc/Corpus">001B71</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Pmc/Curation">001B71</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Pmc/Checkpoint">000778</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Ncbi/Merge">003963</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en" level="a" type="main">A cross-sectional pilot study to investigate patient attitudes and perception regarding the use of real time digital recording of urological procedures for research and teaching purposes</title><author><name sortKey="Sharp, Gary" sort="Sharp, Gary" uniqKey="Sharp G" first="Gary" last="Sharp">Gary Sharp</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><nlm:aff id="aff1">Department of Urology, Broomfield Hospital, Court Road, Broomfield, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 7ET, UK</nlm:aff><country xml:lang="fr">Royaume-Uni</country><wicri:regionArea>Department of Urology, Broomfield Hospital, Court Road, Broomfield, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 7ET</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>Essex CM1 7ET</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Mazzon, Giorgio" sort="Mazzon, Giorgio" uniqKey="Mazzon G" first="Giorgio" last="Mazzon">Giorgio Mazzon</name><affiliation wicri:level="3"><nlm:aff id="aff2">University College Hospital, Endourology Unit, London, UK</nlm:aff><country xml:lang="fr">Royaume-Uni</country><wicri:regionArea>University College Hospital, Endourology Unit, London</wicri:regionArea><placeName><settlement type="city">Londres</settlement><region type="country">Angleterre</region><region type="région" nuts="1">Grand Londres</region></placeName></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Thilagarajah, Ranjan" sort="Thilagarajah, Ranjan" uniqKey="Thilagarajah R" first="Ranjan" last="Thilagarajah">Ranjan Thilagarajah</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><nlm:aff id="aff1">Department of Urology, Broomfield Hospital, Court Road, Broomfield, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 7ET, UK</nlm:aff><country xml:lang="fr">Royaume-Uni</country><wicri:regionArea>Department of Urology, Broomfield Hospital, Court Road, Broomfield, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 7ET</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>Essex CM1 7ET</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author></analytic><series><title level="j">Annals of Medicine and Surgery</title><idno type="eISSN">2049-0801</idno><imprint><date when="2015">2015</date></imprint></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en"><p>Little conclusive evidence exists regarding the best way to educate and evaluate skill acquisition of advanced surgical trainees, despite it being recognised as one of the most important aspects of training. Many laparoscopic trainers have been produced with complex engineering at great cost, but, there seems to be a reluctance to use the most precious entity available to us; the patient. We thus propose the use of real time digital recording of urological procedures for research and teaching purposes. This study was prompted by the lack of literature regarding such issues.</p><p>A 19 question questionnaire was circulated at a single urology out-patient department (Essex, England) over a 6 month period to evaluate attitudes and perceptions of urological patients on potentially having their procedure digitally recorded for educational and research purposes. 11 patients declined, 187 questionnaires were included in the final analysis.</p><p>Male patients are more willing to consent than female patients. Older patients resulted to have a higher propensity in being recorded for medical teaching. Greater than 50% believe being recorded is intrusive but the majority do not think privacy is an issue. Lastly, the vast majority require a formal debrief post operatively.</p><p>Our results show that a percentage of the public are potentially willing to be digitally recorded but many financial and social barriers exist. We have also highlighted areas of possible future research, namely the reluctance behind young urology patients to consent and questions regarding how best to educate possible study participants to ensure proper <italic>informed</italic> consent is gained.</p></div></front><back><div1 type="bibliography"><listBibl><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Millat, B" uniqKey="Millat B">B. Millat</name></author><author><name sortKey="Fingernut, A" uniqKey="Fingernut A">A. Fingernut</name></author><author><name sortKey="Cuschieri, A" uniqKey="Cuschieri A">A. Cuschieri</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Reznick, R" uniqKey="Reznick R">R. Reznick</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Grantcharov, T" uniqKey="Grantcharov T">T. Grantcharov</name></author><author><name sortKey="Schulze, S" uniqKey="Schulze S">S. Schulze</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kristiansen, V" uniqKey="Kristiansen V">V. Kristiansen</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Ali, M" uniqKey="Ali M">M. Ali</name></author><author><name sortKey="Ghanem, A" uniqKey="Ghanem A">A. Ghanem</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hachach Haram, N" uniqKey="Hachach Haram N">N. Hachach-Haram</name></author><author><name sortKey="Leung, C" uniqKey="Leung C">C. Leung</name></author><author><name sortKey="Myers, S" uniqKey="Myers S">S. Myers</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Wysocki, W" uniqKey="Wysocki W">W. Wysocki</name></author><author><name sortKey="Moesta, T" uniqKey="Moesta T">T. Moesta</name></author><author><name sortKey="Schlag, P" uniqKey="Schlag P">P. Schlag</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Adrales, G" uniqKey="Adrales G">G. Adrales</name></author><author><name sortKey="Chu, U" uniqKey="Chu U">U. Chu</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hoskins, J" uniqKey="Hoskins J">J. Hoskins</name></author><author><name sortKey="Witzke, D" uniqKey="Witzke D">D. Witzke</name></author><author><name sortKey="Park, A" uniqKey="Park A">A. Park</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Risucci, D" uniqKey="Risucci D">D. Risucci</name></author><author><name sortKey="Wolfe, K" uniqKey="Wolfe K">K. Wolfe</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kaul, A" uniqKey="Kaul A">A. Kaul</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Schout, B" uniqKey="Schout B">B. Schout</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hendrikx, A" uniqKey="Hendrikx A">A. Hendrikx</name></author><author><name sortKey="Scheele, F" uniqKey="Scheele F">F. Scheele</name></author><author><name sortKey="Bemelmans, B" uniqKey="Bemelmans B">B. Bemelmans</name></author><author><name sortKey="Scherpbier, A" uniqKey="Scherpbier A">A. Scherpbier</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Sutherland, L M" uniqKey="Sutherland L">L.M. Sutherland</name></author><author><name sortKey="Middleton, P F" uniqKey="Middleton P">P.F. Middleton</name></author><author><name sortKey="Anthony, A" uniqKey="Anthony A">A. Anthony</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Van Der Meijden, O" uniqKey="Van Der Meijden O">O. van der Meijden</name></author><author><name sortKey="Schijven, P" uniqKey="Schijven P">P. Schijven</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Tolerton, S" uniqKey="Tolerton S">S. Tolerton</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hugh, T" uniqKey="Hugh T">T. Hugh</name></author><author><name sortKey="Cosman, P" uniqKey="Cosman P">P. Cosman</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Jin, W" uniqKey="Jin W">W. Jin</name></author><author><name sortKey="Lim, Y" uniqKey="Lim Y">Y. Lim</name></author><author><name sortKey="Singh, T" uniqKey="Singh T">T. Singh</name></author><author><name sortKey="De, S" uniqKey="De S">S. De</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Hedican, S" uniqKey="Hedican S">S. Hedican</name></author><author><name sortKey="Nakada, S" uniqKey="Nakada S">S. Nakada</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Schlomm, T" uniqKey="Schlomm T">T. Schlomm</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hartwig, Huland" uniqKey="Hartwig H">Huland Hartwig</name></author><author><name sortKey="Graefen, M" uniqKey="Graefen M">M. Graefen</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Hill, E" uniqKey="Hill E">E. Hill</name></author><author><name sortKey="Turner, E" uniqKey="Turner E">E. Turner</name></author><author><name sortKey="Martin, R" uniqKey="Martin R">R. Martin</name></author><author><name sortKey="Donovan, J" uniqKey="Donovan J">J. Donovan</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Hoover Regan, M" uniqKey="Hoover Regan M">M. Hoover-Regan</name></author><author><name sortKey="Becker, T" uniqKey="Becker T">T. Becker</name></author><author><name sortKey="Williams, M" uniqKey="Williams M">M. Williams</name></author><author><name sortKey="Shenker, Y" uniqKey="Shenker Y">Y. Shenker</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Kho, M" uniqKey="Kho M">M. Kho</name></author><author><name sortKey="Duffett, M" uniqKey="Duffett M">M. Duffett</name></author><author><name sortKey="Willison, D" uniqKey="Willison D">D. Willison</name></author><author><name sortKey="Cook, D" uniqKey="Cook D">D. Cook</name></author><author><name sortKey="Brouwers, M" uniqKey="Brouwers M">M. Brouwers</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Ryan, R" uniqKey="Ryan R">R. Ryan</name></author><author><name sortKey="Prictor, M" uniqKey="Prictor M">M. Prictor</name></author><author><name sortKey="Mclaughlin, K J" uniqKey="Mclaughlin K">K.J. McLaughlin</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hill, S" uniqKey="Hill S">S. Hill</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Kuthning, M" uniqKey="Kuthning M">M. Kuthning</name></author><author><name sortKey="Ferdinand, H" uniqKey="Ferdinand H">H. Ferdinand</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Tamariz, L" uniqKey="Tamariz L">L. Tamariz</name></author><author><name sortKey="Palacio, A" uniqKey="Palacio A">A. Palacio</name></author><author><name sortKey="Robert, M" uniqKey="Robert M">M. Robert</name></author><author><name sortKey="Marcus, E" uniqKey="Marcus E">E. Marcus</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Ozcakar, N" uniqKey="Ozcakar N">N. Ozcakar</name></author><author><name sortKey="Mevsim, V" uniqKey="Mevsim V">V. Mevsim</name></author><author><name sortKey="Guldal, D" uniqKey="Guldal D">D. Guldal</name></author><author><name sortKey="Gunvar, T" uniqKey="Gunvar T">T. Gunvar</name></author><author><name sortKey="Yildirim, E" uniqKey="Yildirim E">E. Yildirim</name></author><author><name sortKey="Sisli, Z" uniqKey="Sisli Z">Z. Sisli</name></author><author><name sortKey="Semin, I" uniqKey="Semin I">I. Semin</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Nakada, S" uniqKey="Nakada S">S. Nakada</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hedican, S" uniqKey="Hedican S">S. Hedican</name></author><author><name sortKey="Bishoff, J" uniqKey="Bishoff J">J. Bishoff</name></author><author><name sortKey="Shichman, S" uniqKey="Shichman S">S. Shichman</name></author><author><name sortKey="Wolf, S" uniqKey="Wolf S">S. Wolf</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Hamad, G" uniqKey="Hamad G">G. Hamad</name></author><author><name sortKey="Brown, M" uniqKey="Brown M">M. Brown</name></author><author><name sortKey="Clavijo Alvarez, J" uniqKey="Clavijo Alvarez J">J. Clavijo-Alvarez</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Bingener, J" uniqKey="Bingener J">J. Bingener</name></author><author><name sortKey="Boyd, T" uniqKey="Boyd T">T. Boyd</name></author><author><name sortKey="Sickle, K" uniqKey="Sickle K">K. Sickle</name></author><author><name sortKey="Jung, I" uniqKey="Jung I">I. Jung</name></author><author><name sortKey="Saha, A" uniqKey="Saha A">A. Saha</name></author><author><name sortKey="Winston, J" uniqKey="Winston J">J. Winston</name></author><author><name sortKey="Lopez, P" uniqKey="Lopez P">P. Lopez</name></author><author><name sortKey="Ojeda, H" uniqKey="Ojeda H">H. Ojeda</name></author><author><name sortKey="Schwesinger, W" uniqKey="Schwesinger W">W. Schwesinger</name></author><author><name sortKey="Anastakis, D" uniqKey="Anastakis D">D. Anastakis</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Kwan, K" uniqKey="Kwan K">K. Kwan</name></author><author><name sortKey="Wu, C" uniqKey="Wu C">C. Wu</name></author><author><name sortKey="Duffy, D" uniqKey="Duffy D">D. Duffy</name></author><author><name sortKey="Masterson, J" uniqKey="Masterson J">J. Masterson</name></author><author><name sortKey="Blair, G" uniqKey="Blair G">G. Blair</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Vassiliou, M" uniqKey="Vassiliou M">M. Vassiliou</name></author><author><name sortKey="Feldman, L" uniqKey="Feldman L">L. Feldman</name></author><author><name sortKey="Fraser, S" uniqKey="Fraser S">S. Fraser</name></author><author><name sortKey="Charlebois, P" uniqKey="Charlebois P">P. Charlebois</name></author><author><name sortKey="Chaudhury, P" uniqKey="Chaudhury P">P. Chaudhury</name></author><author><name sortKey="Stanbridge, D" uniqKey="Stanbridge D">D. Stanbridge</name></author><author><name sortKey="Fried, G" uniqKey="Fried G">G. Fried</name></author></analytic></biblStruct></listBibl></div1></back></TEI><pmc article-type="research-article"><pmc-dir>properties open_access</pmc-dir>
<front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-ta">Ann Med Surg (Lond)</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="iso-abbrev">Ann Med Surg (Lond)</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Annals of Medicine and Surgery</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2049-0801</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Elsevier</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="pmid">26005568</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="pmc">4434208</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">S2049-0801(15)00024-2</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.amsu.2015.04.004</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Article</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>A cross-sectional pilot study to investigate patient attitudes and perception regarding the use of real time digital recording of urological procedures for research and teaching purposes</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Sharp</surname><given-names>Gary</given-names></name><email>garybeau1@yahoo.co.uk</email><xref rid="aff1" ref-type="aff">a</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Mazzon</surname><given-names>Giorgio</given-names></name><email>giorgiomazzon83@gmail.com</email><xref rid="aff2" ref-type="aff">b</xref><xref rid="cor1" ref-type="corresp">∗</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Thilagarajah</surname><given-names>Ranjan</given-names></name><xref rid="aff1" ref-type="aff">a</xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><label>a</label>Department of Urology, Broomfield Hospital, Court Road, Broomfield, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 7ET, UK</aff><aff id="aff2"><label>b</label>University College Hospital, Endourology Unit, London, UK</aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1"><label>∗</label>Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 7913 990473. <email>giorgiomazzon83@gmail.com</email></corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="pmc-release"><day>14</day><month>4</month><year>2015</year></pub-date><pmc-comment> PMC Release delay is 0 months and 0 days and was based on .</pmc-comment>
<pub-date pub-type="collection"><month>6</month><year>2015</year></pub-date><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>14</day><month>4</month><year>2015</year></pub-date><volume>4</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>151</fpage><lpage>157</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>18</day><month>2</month><year>2015</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>5</day><month>4</month><year>2015</year></date><date date-type="accepted"><day>8</day><month>4</month><year>2015</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>Crown Copyright © 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of IJS Publishing Group Limited.</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2015</copyright-year><copyright-holder></copyright-holder><license license-type="CC BY-NC-ND" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/"><license-p>This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>Little conclusive evidence exists regarding the best way to educate and evaluate skill acquisition of advanced surgical trainees, despite it being recognised as one of the most important aspects of training. Many laparoscopic trainers have been produced with complex engineering at great cost, but, there seems to be a reluctance to use the most precious entity available to us; the patient. We thus propose the use of real time digital recording of urological procedures for research and teaching purposes. This study was prompted by the lack of literature regarding such issues.</p><p>A 19 question questionnaire was circulated at a single urology out-patient department (Essex, England) over a 6 month period to evaluate attitudes and perceptions of urological patients on potentially having their procedure digitally recorded for educational and research purposes. 11 patients declined, 187 questionnaires were included in the final analysis.</p><p>Male patients are more willing to consent than female patients. Older patients resulted to have a higher propensity in being recorded for medical teaching. Greater than 50% believe being recorded is intrusive but the majority do not think privacy is an issue. Lastly, the vast majority require a formal debrief post operatively.</p><p>Our results show that a percentage of the public are potentially willing to be digitally recorded but many financial and social barriers exist. We have also highlighted areas of possible future research, namely the reluctance behind young urology patients to consent and questions regarding how best to educate possible study participants to ensure proper <italic>informed</italic> consent is gained.</p></abstract><abstract abstract-type="author-highlights"><title>Highlights</title><p><list list-type="simple"><list-item id="u0010"><label>•</label><p>We investigate the use of real time digital recording of urological procedures for research and teaching purposes.</p></list-item><list-item id="u0015"><label>•</label><p>Male patients are most willing to consent in comparison with female patients.</p></list-item><list-item id="u0020"><label>•</label><p>Older patients resulted to have a higher propensity in being recorded for medical teaching.</p></list-item><list-item id="u0025"><label>•</label><p>Greater than 50% believe being recorded is intrusive but the majority do not think privacy is an issue.</p></list-item></list></p></abstract><kwd-group><title>Keywords</title><kwd>Real time digital recording</kwd><kwd>Advanced surgical training</kwd><kwd>Teaching purposes</kwd><kwd>Privacy</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec sec-type="intro" id="sec1"><label>1</label><title>Introduction</title><p>There is limited evidence regarding the evaluation of advanced surgical trainees' technical abilities and no principal method favoured. There is even further uncertainty surrounding advanced minimally invasive surgical (MIS) education <xref rid="bib1" ref-type="bibr">[1]</xref>. Some even suggest teaching and assessment of skill attainment is the most inconsistent component in surgical teaching, despite being one of the most important <xref rid="bib2" ref-type="bibr">[2]</xref>. What is known is that “deficiencies in performance are unlikely to be corrected unless there is a mechanism to provide reliable and systematic feedback” <xref rid="bib3" ref-type="bibr">[3]</xref>.</p><p>The introduction of working time directives in many developed countries and a decrease in training years has reduced operative exposure for trainees <xref rid="bib4" ref-type="bibr">[4]</xref>. It is now more pertinent than ever to find a socially acceptable educational tool that can aid trainee surgeons in becoming expert surgeons. Our survey aims to investigate patient attitudes and perceptions regarding the potential use of real time digital recording of urological procedures for teaching purposes.</p><p>Halsteads prophecy (1904) of “see one, do one, teach one”, was the mantra of surgical education for decades. This method has now fallen out of favour and for many reasons is no longer accepted <xref rid="bib5" ref-type="bibr">[5]</xref>. Subsequently the “learning curve” was hypothesised which assessed one's ability to develop over time against errors made <xref rid="bib5" ref-type="bibr">[5]</xref>. The learning curve was proposed to have an inverse relationship to the number of errors made and time until an expert surgeon is established <xref rid="bib5" ref-type="bibr">[5]</xref>.</p><p>Surgeons then enlisted non-surgeons to develop teaching tools and the first computer based surgical simulator was developed in 1989 by NASA employees <xref rid="bib5" ref-type="bibr">[5]</xref>. The use of virtual reality was then proposed and simulated laparoscopic trainers were created <xref rid="bib5" ref-type="bibr">[5]</xref>. Initially laparoscopic techniques did not reduce morbidity, rather cases of biliary injury rose significantly in the United States <xref rid="bib6" ref-type="bibr">[6]</xref>. This increase was due to untrained surgeons using unfamiliar instruments and techniques. Although laparoscopic simulators teach subjects how to manoeuvre the camera and manipulate objects <xref rid="bib5" ref-type="bibr">[5]</xref> whilst allowing errors to be made without harming patients <xref rid="bib7" ref-type="bibr">[7]</xref> they are far from the real thing and their validity has been questioned <xref rid="bib8" ref-type="bibr">[8]</xref>. Some authors even go as far to suggest that simulators show no significant training enrichment <xref rid="bib9" ref-type="bibr">[9]</xref>.</p><p>Simulator development then recruited haptic feedback to enhance MIS training <xref rid="bib5" ref-type="bibr">[5]</xref>. The belief was that more mistakes were being made due to a lack of haptic feedback. However, in a recent systematic review this theory has been rebuked with results showing no clear consensus regarding its importance in education <xref rid="bib10" ref-type="bibr">[10]</xref>.</p><p>Advances in technology and the evolution of a digital era have meant a greater ability to educate through a hands-off approach <xref rid="bib11" ref-type="bibr">[11]</xref> with an emphasis to educate surgeons through the use of simulators <xref rid="bib4" ref-type="bibr">[4]</xref>. The technology needed to create realistic images requires the combined efforts of mechanical, aerospace and nuclear engineers <xref rid="bib12" ref-type="bibr">[12]</xref> with many authors acknowledging challenges in using such technology <xref rid="bib11" ref-type="bibr">[11]</xref>. The cost to purchase this technology is unrealistic for many surgical training units/hospitals/medical schools. The use of real time digital recording would negate such costs. Hedican and Nakada <xref rid="bib13" ref-type="bibr">[13]</xref> state that “teaching must occur in an environment that is safe but also cost effective and transferable to the operating room”. There is an increased interest on real time digital recording as part of teaching of surgical trainees and there is evidence that watching other surgeon operate can determine an improvement of surgical outcomes <xref rid="bib14" ref-type="bibr">[14]</xref>. We feel our proposed methods achieve all of these. However, there is scant evidence regarding the use of real time digital recording of laparoscopic procedures as a means to evaluate and educate advanced surgical trainees.</p><p>We feel that real time digital recording of urological procedures for teaching purposes will ultimately lead to a better advanced surgical training experience, greater skill acquisition and reduce the potential for surgical errors. Our principle, mirrored by other authors <xref rid="bib1" ref-type="bibr">[1]</xref>, ensures that the patient remain the sole focus and we are only suggesting trainees be recorded in procedures they are already deemed competent in. To our knowledge no previous data exist regarding patient attitudes and perceptions surrounding the use of real time digital recording of urological procedures for teaching purposes.</p><p>Through our research we hope to address four key research questions; does age influence patients willingness to consent to real time digital recording of urological procedures for research and teaching purposes? Does gender influence patients willingness to consent to real time digital recording of urological procedures for research and teaching purposes? Is real time digital recording of urological procedures for research and teaching purposes socially acceptable? What percentage of our sample necessitate a formal debrief post real time digital recording?</p></sec><sec sec-type="materials|methods" id="sec2"><label>2</label><title>Materials and methods</title><p>After gaining local research approval all authors studied the General Medical Council's (GMC) “Good Medical Practice Guidelines, 2013” and translated several guidelines into 46 questions. After discussion all authors agreed to include 16 questions based on GMC guidance in the questionnaire. The 16 questions included 3 white space and 13 Yes/No questions exploring patient perspective on potentially having their urological procedure digitally recorded for research and educational purposes. Once the questions were finalised and approved they were arranged onto a single A4 sheet, at the top of which was a brief outline of the study aims. The questionnaires were distributed in one urology out-patient department in the Mid-Essex Trust, UK, by a single author (GS) over a 6 month period. Patients were approached and a brief explanation of the study and the hypothetical questions it contained given. No patients were actually recorded at any time throughout this survey. No selection or exclusion criteria were used. Eleven patients decline outright; no reason for their refusal was elicited. A total of 187 questionnaires remained, the results of which were entered onto an SPSS spreadsheet for later analysis. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 20.0 software. We sought if age (patients subdivided in quartiles) and sex were related to different answers in the questionnaire by univariate analysis. P values < 0.05 were considered significant.</p></sec><sec sec-type="results" id="sec3"><label>3</label><title>Results</title><p>187 adults (over 18 years of age) were recruited with a median age of 66 years (IQR: 23). Age ranges were 22–91 (males) and 22–92 (females). 136 patients (73.1%) enrolled were males (median age: 68, IQR: 19) and 51 (27.3%) were female (median age: 60, IQR: 24). The answers given to the survey are presented in <xref rid="tbl1" ref-type="table">Table 1</xref>.</p><p>113 out of 187 patients (60.4%) would potentially consent to being recorded for teaching purposes whilst 98 patients (52.3%) considered being digitally recorded intrusive. However, the majority of participants (57.2%) thought it did not affect privacy. When participants were asked how we could minimise privacy and intrusive issues very few comments were left in the available white space (37 out of 187 questionnaires collected). Comments left fell into two broad categories; those generally opposed to the idea - “Don't do it”, “don't agree with filming” - and those surrounding anonymity such as “… no mention of name or anything to identify me”, “Hide identity”. The majority (63.1%) wanted their face excluded from any potential images, but did not feel surgeons should also be anonymised (54.5%). Most were willing for a brief introduction regarding their relevant medical/surgical history to be narrated in order to set the scene (66.3%) with the majority not feeling this would compromise confidentiality (64.7%). The response rate was poor when asked how many medical staff should be present during potential recordings. Regardless, the general consensus was “as many as is needed”. The qualitative results regarding how participants would feel if complications arose during surgery can be divided into 3 recurring themes; (1) negatively charged emotional responses “annoyed; worried; horrified; sick; scared; numb”; (2) unperturbed responses “carry on and learn from it; it would be good to see how people react; it wouldn't bother me” and lastly those who wanted the (3) “filming to cease immediately”. The majority who agreed to being recorded did not want anyone but the surgeons immediately involved to view potential images (65.1%). The large majority of those willing to be recorded despite gender or age wanted a postoperative debrief (66.3%). The final white space question offered participants the opportunity to leave “Any further comments …” The response rate was extremely poor with only 20 participants (10.69%) leaving constructive thoughts. These broadly fell into 5 themes; social acceptance, good idea, concerns around privacy/sensitivity, those unwilling and those deemed thought provoking. Answers are reported in <xref rid="tbl2" ref-type="table">Table 2</xref>.</p><p>Subsequently patients were divided in quartiles according to age (I quartile: under 52 years of age; II quartile: between 52 and 66 years of age; III quartile: between 66 and 75 years of age; IV quartile: over 75 years of age.</p><p>According to quartiles, we found a statistically significant differences in four questions of the questionnaire: willing to be filmed; privacy affected if being filmed; number of staff present during recording; if images have to be left. Results are presented in <xref rid="tbl3 tbl4 tbl5 tbl6" ref-type="table">Tables 3–6</xref> and our data showed a better propensity of older people to potentially participate in digital recording for teaching purposes.</p><p>Finally, we tested if sex influenced the results of the questionnaire, these are presented in <xref rid="tbl7" ref-type="table">Table 7</xref>. In general, males were more inclined to participate in real time digital recording. When evaluating gender difference statistical significance was observed in two items: If you were potentially filmed would you want your face excluded? 34% of male patients verses 15.90% of female patients <italic>would</italic> allow themselves to be filmed without excluding their face, p = 0.016. Secondly, 80.64% of male patients verses 62.50% of female patients <italic>would</italic> allow themselves to be recorded even if complications occurred, p = 0.050. No statistically significant differences were found in other items.</p></sec><sec sec-type="discussion" id="sec4"><label>4</label><title>Discussion</title><p>The questions addressed by the study were fourfold; does gender influence patients willingness to consent to real time digital recording of urological procedures for research and teaching purposes? Does age influence patients willingness to consent to real time digital recording of urological procedures for research and teaching purposes? Is real time digital recording of urological procedures for research and teaching purposes socially acceptable? What percentage of our sample necessitate a formal debrief post real time digital recording?</p><p>The principal results are as follows; older patients are most willing to consent to potential recording. Male patients showed a better propensity to participate. Greater than 50% of our sample believe being recorded is intrusive but the majority do not think privacy is an issue. Lastly, the vast majority would require a formal debrief post operatively.</p><p>The first question addressed by the present study concerned age and whether this was an influencing factor in patients willingness to consent. Our study showed that age does influence consent, with those older being more likely to consent. The effect age has on participation in research is poorly represented in current literature, and when available has diverse methodology. However, Hill et al.'s <xref rid="bib15" ref-type="bibr">[15]</xref> findings were consistent with ours. In their systematic review they too found older patients more likely to consent in study participation. However, Hoover-Regan et al. <xref rid="bib16" ref-type="bibr">[16]</xref>, investigated oncological and non-oncological study participants <italic>understanding</italic> of the clinical trial they were currently enrolled in. They found patients over 60 had the least knowledge. The motivation behind such blind consent may include the belief that doctors are acting in patients best interests or perhaps misguided thoughts that consent might “speed up their treatment” as one of our participants queried. It has also been hypothesised that patients are often anxious not to disappoint their surgeon <xref rid="bib17" ref-type="bibr">[17]</xref> leading to reluctant consent. Kho et al. <xref rid="bib17" ref-type="bibr">[17]</xref>, investigated whether informed consent for use of data from medical records introduces selection bias by examining differences in key personal characteristics between participants and non-participants. Although the study designs included in their systematic review are different from ours they were the closest representation we found. Their results showed clear gender and age differences regarding consent in the studies included, but, no significant clear pattern was apparent. Our results suggest that the younger population should be targeted in the future through education and reassurance surrounding potential use of material and anonymity. Hoover-Regan et al. <xref rid="bib16" ref-type="bibr">[16]</xref>, suggest the most beneficial way is a one-to-one meeting with the potential study participants and a research staff member. Another method argued to enhance participants knowledge of research is through audio-visual presentations. However, a recent Cochrane Review on such methods concluded its value was “unclear” <xref rid="bib18" ref-type="bibr">[18]</xref>.</p><p>The second question addressed genders influence on willingness to consent to real time digital recording of urological procedures. Our results indicate that males are more willing to be recorded regardless of age (<xref rid="tbl7" ref-type="table">Table 7</xref>). Again there is a shortage of evidence to either support of argue against these findings. Kho et al's., <xref rid="bib17" ref-type="bibr">[17]</xref>, systematic review located fourteen studies that gave details surrounding consent and gender. Ultimately they acknowledged a lack of consistency “in the direction and magnitude of effect” and the cause for differences between genders were indeterminate. Hill et al. <xref rid="bib15" ref-type="bibr">[15]</xref>, found the opposite to our findings and suggest that older males are in fact more likely to consent to study participation. It must be noted however that this study was looking at the use of medical record data and as such comparisons cannot ready be made.</p><p>The third question concerned whether potential real time digital recording of urological procedures for research and teaching purposes was intrusive and affected privacy. In this study we provide evidence that >56% of the sample did not believe it affected privacy (<xref rid="tbl1" ref-type="table">Table 1</xref>). However, >50%, despite gender, believed being recorded is intrusive.</p><p>A minor proportion of the sample gave conflicting results when answering questions regarding privacy and the intrusive nature of potential real time digital recording. A small percentage believed the process to affect privacy and be intrusive, but still consented to being filmed (<xref rid="tbl1" ref-type="table">Table 1</xref>). We suggest two possible explanations for this; firstly perhaps a lack of understanding regarding the questions through possible ambiguity or perhaps even functional illiteracy. Functional illiteracy is defined as the ability to read and write simple sentences but be unable to function fully within ones society <xref rid="bib19" ref-type="bibr">[19]</xref>. It is quite possible that some of our participants were functionally illiterate. Addressing such issues is complicated and no single strategy is known to significantly increase understanding throughout this population <xref rid="bib20" ref-type="bibr">[20]</xref>. Secondly, perhaps patients are willing to consent to things they deem unacceptable through unsubstantiated fear of negative future outcomes e.g. delayed operation.</p><p>The fourth question investigated what percentage of our sample necessitate a formal debrief following potential real time digital recording? In this study we have found that between 76 and 77% of the sample, regardless of age or gender would like a formal debrief (<xref rid="tbl1" ref-type="table">Table 1</xref>). The large percentage of the sample wishing to have the opportunity for a formal debrief was an unexpected and surprising finding. It is of course standard practice to inform the patient of intraoperative findings and perioperative expectations. However, the large majority wanting a debriefing will add huge time pressures on already overloaded health care professionals. The time needed to describe the process and explain images in lay-terminology would place huge time constraints on both consultants and advanced surgical trainees. In turn many may feel the time demands outweigh the educational benefits of such a tool.</p><p>The findings in this study are limited to the urological population only. Seeing as urological procedures are unique in their intimate nature and possible negative social taboos, we acknowledge findings cannot be extrapolated to the wider surgical population. Ultimately, as previously demonstrated by several authors <xref rid="bib3 bib13 bib21 bib22 bib23" ref-type="bibr">[3,13,21,22,23]</xref> the use of recorded images coupled with expert feedback leads to better educational outcomes for students. It is therefore already known that this is a valid technique to educate advanced surgeons <xref rid="bib24 bib25 bib26" ref-type="bibr">[24–26]</xref>. Our results show that in order for this to become socially acceptable several factors need to be addressed.</p></sec><sec sec-type="conclusions" id="sec5"><label>5</label><title>Conclusion</title><p>Our results show that a percentage of the public are willing to be digitally recorded for research and educational purposes, however, there are caveats. The large number of patients who requested a formal debrief may be the defining factor in this form of education becoming a valid method. The time and cost to debrief all patents would be vast. Regardless, we believe with more patient education regarding this method many worries would dissipate and less would in fact demand such an in-depth debrief. We have also highlighted several areas of possible future research, namely the reluctance behind young urology patients to consent and questions regarding how best to educate possible study participants to ensure proper <italic>informed</italic> consent is gained.</p></sec><sec id="sec6"><title>Conflicts of interest</title><p>None.</p></sec><sec id="sec7"><title>Sources of funding</title><p>None.</p></sec><sec id="sec8"><title>Ethical approval</title><p>The study was approved by internal committee: CA14-077.</p></sec><sec id="sec9"><title>Research registration unique identifying number (UIN)</title><p>Not required.</p></sec><sec id="sec10"><title>Author contribution</title><p>Dr. Sharp contributed to the conception and design of the studies; acquisition of data; analysis and interpretation of data; drafting and revision of the manuscript critically for important intellectual context; and, provided final approval of the manuscript.</p><p>Dr. Mazzon contributed to analysis and interpretation of data; drafting and revision of the manuscript critically for important intellectual context and provided final approval of the manuscript.</p><p>Dr. Thilagarajah contributed to the conception and design of the studies; interpretation of data; revision of the manuscript critically for important intellectual context; and, provided final approval of the manuscript.</p></sec><sec id="sec11"><title>Guarantor</title><p>Guarantor: Dr Ranjan Thilagarajah.</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="bib1"><label>1</label><element-citation publication-type="journal" id="sref1"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Millat</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name><name><surname>Fingernut</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Cuschieri</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Live surgery and video presentations: seeing is believing...but no more: a plea for structured rigor and ethical considerations</article-title><source>Surg. Endosc.</source><volume>20</volume><year>2006</year><fpage>845</fpage><lpage>847</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">16738966</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib2"><label>2</label><element-citation publication-type="journal" id="sref2"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Reznick</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Teaching and testing technical skills</article-title><source>Am. J. Surg</source><volume>165</volume><year>1993</year><fpage>358</fpage><lpage>361</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">8447543</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib3"><label>3</label><element-citation publication-type="journal" id="sref3"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Grantcharov</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name><name><surname>Schulze</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Kristiansen</surname><given-names>V.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>The impact of objective assessment and constructive feedback on laparoscopic performance in the operating room</article-title><source>Surg. Endosc</source><volume>21</volume><year>2007</year><fpage>2240</fpage><lpage>2243</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17440781</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib4"><label>4</label><element-citation publication-type="journal" id="sref4"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ali</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Ghanem</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Hachach-Haram</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name><name><surname>Leung</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Myers</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>A systematic review of evidence for education and training interventions in microsurgery</article-title><source>Arch. Plast. Surg</source><volume>40</volume><year>2013</year><fpage>312</fpage><lpage>319</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23898424</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib5"><label>5</label><element-citation publication-type="journal" id="sref5"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Wysocki</surname><given-names>W.</given-names></name><name><surname>Moesta</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name><name><surname>Schlag</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Surgery, surgical education and surgical diagnostic procedures in the digital era</article-title><source>Med Sci Monit</source><volume>9</volume><issue>3</issue><year>2003</year><fpage>69</fpage><lpage>75</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib6"><label>6</label><element-citation publication-type="journal" id="sref6"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Adrales</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name><name><surname>Chu</surname><given-names>U.</given-names></name><name><surname>Hoskins</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Witzke</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Park</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Development of a valid, cost-effective laparoscopic training program</article-title><source>Am. J. Surg</source><volume>187</volume><year>2004</year><fpage>157</fpage><lpage>163</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">14769299</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib7"><label>7</label><element-citation publication-type="journal" id="sref7"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Risucci</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Wolfe</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name><name><surname>Kaul</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Promoting self-efficacy in minimally invasive surgery training</article-title><source>J. Soc. Laparoendosc. Surg</source><volume>13</volume><year>2009</year><fpage>4</fpage><lpage>8</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib8"><label>8</label><element-citation publication-type="journal" id="sref8"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Schout</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name><name><surname>Hendrikx</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Scheele</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Bemelmans</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name><name><surname>Scherpbier</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Validation and implementation of surgical simulators: a critical review of present, past, and future</article-title><source>Surg. Endosc</source><volume>24</volume><year>2010</year><fpage>536</fpage><lpage>546</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19633886</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib9"><label>9</label><element-citation publication-type="journal" id="sref9"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Sutherland</surname><given-names>L.M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Middleton</surname><given-names>P.F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Anthony</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Surgical simulation: a systematic review</article-title><source>Ann. Surg</source><volume>243</volume><year>2006</year><fpage>291</fpage><lpage>300</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">16495690</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib10"><label>10</label><element-citation publication-type="journal" id="sref10"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>van der Meijden</surname><given-names>O.</given-names></name><name><surname>Schijven</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>The value of haptic feedback in conventional and robot-assisted minimal invasive surgery and virtual reality training: a current review,</article-title><source>Surg. Endosc</source><volume>2009</volume><issue>23</issue><year>2009</year><fpage>1180</fpage><lpage>1190</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19118414</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib11"><label>11</label><element-citation publication-type="journal" id="sref11"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Tolerton</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Hugh</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name><name><surname>Cosman</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>The production of audiovisual teaching tools in minimally invasive surgery</article-title><source>J. Surg. Educ</source><volume>69</volume><issue>3</issue><year>2011</year><fpage>404</fpage><lpage>406</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">22483144</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib12"><label>12</label><element-citation publication-type="journal" id="sref12"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Jin</surname><given-names>W.</given-names></name><name><surname>Lim</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name><name><surname>Singh</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name><name><surname>De</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Use of surgical videos for realistic simulation of surgical procedures</article-title><source>Stud. Health. Technol. Inf</source><volume>119</volume><year>2006</year><comment>Medicine meets virtual reality 14 – Accelerating change in healthcare: Next Medical toolkit. IOS press Ebooks</comment></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib13"><label>13</label><element-citation publication-type="journal" id="sref13"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hedican</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Nakada</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Videotape mentoring and surgical simulation in laparoscopic courses</article-title><source>J. Endourol</source><volume>21</volume><issue>3</issue><year>2007</year><fpage>288</fpage><lpage>293</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17444774</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib14"><label>14</label><element-citation publication-type="journal" id="sref14"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Schlomm</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name><name><surname>Hartwig</surname><given-names>Huland</given-names></name><name><surname>Graefen</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Improving outcome of surgical procedures is not possible without adequate quality measurement</article-title><source>Eur. Urol</source><volume>65</volume><year>2014</year><fpage>1017</fpage><lpage>1019</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">24332348</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib15"><label>15</label><element-citation publication-type="journal" id="sref15"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hill</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name><name><surname>Turner</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name><name><surname>Martin</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Donovan</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>“Let's get the best quality research we can”: public awareness and acceptance of consent to use existing data in health research: a systematic review and qualitative study Hill et al</article-title><source>BMC Med. Res. Methodol</source><volume>13</volume><issue>72</issue><year>2013</year><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/13/72" id="intref0010">http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/13/72</ext-link></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib16"><label>16</label><element-citation publication-type="journal" id="sref16"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hoover-Regan</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Becker</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name><name><surname>Williams</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Shenker</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Informed consent and research subject understanding of clinical trials</article-title><source>WMJ</source><volume>112</volume><issue>1</issue><year>2013</year><fpage>18</fpage><lpage>23</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23513309</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib17"><label>17</label><element-citation publication-type="journal" id="sref17"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kho</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Duffett</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Willison</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Cook</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Brouwers</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Written informed consent and selection bias in observational studies using medical records: systematic review</article-title><source>BMJ</source><volume>338</volume><year>2009</year><fpage>b866</fpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19282440</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib18"><label>18</label><element-citation publication-type="journal" id="sref18"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ryan</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Prictor</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>McLaughlin</surname><given-names>K.J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Hill</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Audio-visual presentation of information for informed consent for participation in clinical trials (review)</article-title><source>Cochrane Database Syst Rev 5</source><year>2014 May 9</year></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib19"><label>19</label><element-citation publication-type="journal" id="sref19"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kuthning</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Ferdinand</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Aspects of vulnerable patients and informed consent in clinical trials</article-title><source>GMS Ger Med. Sci.</source><volume>2013</volume><issue>11</issue><year>2013</year><fpage>1612</fpage><lpage>3174</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib20"><label>20</label><element-citation publication-type="journal" id="sref20"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Tamariz</surname><given-names>L.</given-names></name><name><surname>Palacio</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Robert</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Marcus</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Improving the informed consent process for research subjects with low literacy: a systematic review</article-title><source>J. Gen. Intern. Med</source><volume>28</volume><issue>1</issue><year>2012</year><fpage>121</fpage><lpage>126</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">22782275</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib21"><label>21</label><element-citation publication-type="journal" id="sref21"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ozcakar</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name><name><surname>Mevsim</surname><given-names>V.</given-names></name><name><surname>Guldal</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Gunvar</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name><name><surname>Yildirim</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name><name><surname>Sisli</surname><given-names>Z.</given-names></name><name><surname>Semin</surname><given-names>I.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Is the use of videotape recording superior to verbal feedback alone in the teaching of clinical skills?</article-title><source>BMC Public Health</source><volume>9</volume><year>2009</year><fpage>474</fpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">20021688</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib22"><label>22</label><element-citation publication-type="journal" id="sref22"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Nakada</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Hedican</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Bishoff</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Shichman</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Wolf</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Expert videotape analysis and critiquing benefit laparoscopic skills training of urologists</article-title><source>J. Soc. Laparoendosc. Surg</source><volume>8</volume><year>2004</year><fpage>183</fpage><lpage>186</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib23"><label>23</label><element-citation publication-type="journal" id="sref23"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hamad</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name><name><surname>Brown</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Clavijo-Alvarez</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Postoperative video debriefing reduces technical errors in laparoscopic surgery</article-title><source>Am. J. Surg</source><volume>194</volume><year>2007</year><fpage>110</fpage><lpage>114</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17560921</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib24"><label>24</label><element-citation publication-type="journal" id="sref24"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Bingener</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Boyd</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name><name><surname>Sickle</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name><name><surname>Jung</surname><given-names>I.</given-names></name><name><surname>Saha</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Winston</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Lopez</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><name><surname>Ojeda</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name><name><surname>Schwesinger</surname><given-names>W.</given-names></name><name><surname>Anastakis</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Randomised double-blinded trial investigating the impact of a curriculum focused on error recognition on laparoscopic suturing training</article-title><source>Am. J. Surg</source><volume>195</volume><year>2008</year><fpage>179</fpage><lpage>182</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18096125</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib25"><label>25</label><element-citation publication-type="journal" id="sref25"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kwan</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name><name><surname>Wu</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Duffy</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Masterson</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Blair</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Lights, camera, surgery: a novel pilot project to engage medical students in the development of pediatric surgical learning resources</article-title><source>J. Paediatr. Surg</source><volume>46</volume><year>2011</year><fpage>962</fpage><lpage>965</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="bib26"><label>26</label><element-citation publication-type="journal" id="sref26"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Vassiliou</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Feldman</surname><given-names>L.</given-names></name><name><surname>Fraser</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Charlebois</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><name><surname>Chaudhury</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><name><surname>Stanbridge</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Fried</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Evaluating intraoperative laparoscopic skill: direct observation versus blinded videotaped performances</article-title><source>Sug. Innov</source><volume>14</volume><issue>4</issue><year>2007</year><fpage>211</fpage><lpage>216</lpage></element-citation></ref></ref-list></back><floats-group><table-wrap id="tbl1" position="float"><label>Table 1</label><caption><p>Answers given by patients.</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th>Questionnaire’s question</th><th>Answer (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="2"><bold>Would you be willing to have your treatment filmed for research purposes?</bold></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>72 (38.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>113 (60.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Did not answer</td><td>2 (1.1)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><bold>Do you feel the public may think filming patients is intrusive?</bold></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>81 (43.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>98 (52.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Did not answer</td><td>8 (4.3)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><bold>Do you feel this would affect your privacy and dignity</bold>?</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>107 (57.2)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>79 (42.2)</td></tr><tr><td>Did not answer</td><td>1 (0.5)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><bold>When being filmed do you feel discussing your Past Medical History (PMH) is appropriate?</bold></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>42 (22.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>129 (69.0)</td></tr><tr><td>Did not answer</td><td>16 (8.6)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><bold>Do you feel discussing your PMH may compromise confidentiality?</bold></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>121 (64.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>53 (28.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Did not answer</td><td>9 (4.8)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><bold>If you were potentially filmed would you want your face excluded?</bold></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>49 (26.2)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>118 (63.1)</td></tr><tr><td>Did not answer</td><td>18 (9.6)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><bold>Do you feel the surgeons should be anonymised to protect patient confidentiality?</bold></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>102 (54.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>69 (36.9)</td></tr><tr><td>Did not answer</td><td>16 (8.6)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><bold>How many staff present during potential filming?</bold></td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>44 (23.5)</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>8 (4.3)</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>22 (11.8)</td></tr><tr><td>More than 3</td><td>27 (14.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Did not answer</td><td>86 (46.0)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><bold>Would you prefer the filming to be carried out by a same sex operator?</bold></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>83 (44.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>67 (35.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Did not answer</td><td>37 (19.8)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><bold>If you were unconscious, would you be happy for your next of kin to agree to your treatment being filmed?</bold></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>57 (30.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>102 (54.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Did not answer</td><td>28 (15.0)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><bold>Would you want to view footage prior to use?</bold></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>39 (20.9)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>116 (62.0)</td></tr><tr><td>Did not answer</td><td>32 (17.1)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><bold>Would you like an opportunity to ask questions and be debriefed?</bold></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>25 (13.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>124 (66.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Did not answer</td><td>38 (20.3)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><bold>Would you prefer images to be left in the recording if complications arose?</bold></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>49 (26.2)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>87 (46.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Did not answer</td><td>51 (27.3)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><bold>Would you mind medical/surgical colleagues viewing the recordings?</bold></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>123 (65.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>30 (16.0)</td></tr><tr><td>Did not answer</td><td>34 (18.2)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><bold>Would you want filming to stop if complications arose?</bold></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>58 (31.0)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>10 (5.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Upset to be filmed but don’t stop recording</td><td>19 (10.2)</td></tr><tr><td>Did not answer</td><td>100 (53.5)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="tbl2" position="float"><label>Table 2</label><caption><p>Final white space comments.</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2"><bold>Social acceptance</bold></td><td>“Due to the nature of this treatment I would not be happy to be filmed”</td></tr><tr><td>“Requires volunteers”</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4"><bold>Good idea</bold></td><td>“Good idea to film”</td></tr><tr><td>“If this is to help teaching, I’m all for it”</td></tr><tr><td>“Filming is a great way for students to learn as they tend to remember the film rather than reading the text”</td></tr><tr><td>“I would like to think this (consent to being filmed) would help with teaching”</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3"><bold>Concerns around privacy/sensitivity</bold></td><td>“Very concern about issues of privacy”</td></tr><tr><td>“The whole procedure should be done with sensitivity”</td></tr><tr><td>“I would generally support filming for research purposes as long as films did not find their way to public TV channels”</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Those totally unwilling</bold></td><td>“Personally would not be willing”</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"><bold>Thought provoking…</bold></td><td>“Would it speed up treatment?”</td></tr><tr><td>“Filmed if necessary for diagnosis”</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="tbl3" position="float"><label>Table 3</label><caption><p>Willing to be filmed?</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="fx1"></graphic></table-wrap><table-wrap id="tbl4" position="float"><label>Table 4</label><caption><p>Privacy affected by being filmed?</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="fx2"></graphic></table-wrap><table-wrap id="tbl5" position="float"><label>Table 5</label><caption><p>Number of staff present at filming?</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="fx3"></graphic></table-wrap><table-wrap id="tbl6" position="float"><label>Table 6</label><caption><p>Images to be left in if complications arose?</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="fx4"></graphic></table-wrap><table-wrap id="tbl7" position="float"><label>Table 7</label><caption><p>Gender comparison to questions answered.</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th>Questionnaire questions</th><th>Male (%)</th><th>Female (%)</th><th>Sig.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><bold>Would you be willing to have your treatment filmed for research purposes?</bold></td><td rowspan="3">0.121</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>56 (41.48)</td><td>15 (32.60)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>79 (58.52)</td><td>31 (67.40)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><bold>Do you feel the public may think filming patients is intrusive?</bold></td><td rowspan="3">0.550</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>59 (45.73)</td><td>20 (44.44)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>70 (54.27)</td><td>25 (55.56)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><bold>Do you feel this would affect your privacy and dignity</bold>?</td><td rowspan="3">0.791</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>77 (57.46)</td><td>30 (60.00)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>57 (42.54)</td><td>20 (40.00)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><bold>When being filmed do you feel discussing your Past Medical History (PMH) is appropriate?</bold></td><td rowspan="3">0.571</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>30 (24.39)</td><td>11(23.91)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>93 (75.61)</td><td>35(76.09)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><bold>Do you feel discussing your PMH may compromise confidentiality?</bold></td><td rowspan="3">0.788</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>87 (68.50)</td><td>34 (73.91)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>40 (31.50)</td><td>12 (26.09)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><bold>If you were potentially filmed would you want your face excluded?</bold></td><td rowspan="3">0.016</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>42 (34.42)</td><td>7 (15.90)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>80 (65.58)</td><td>37 (84.10)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">D<bold>o you feel the surgeons should be anonymised to protect patient confidentiality?</bold></td><td rowspan="3">0.153</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>71 (57.25)</td><td>31 (67.39)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>53 (42.75)</td><td>15 (32.61)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><bold>How many staff present during potential filming?</bold></td><td rowspan="5">0.819</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>31 (43.05)</td><td>13 (46.72)</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>7 (9.72)</td><td>1 (3.57)</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>16 (22.22)</td><td>5 (17.85)</td></tr><tr><td>More than 3</td><td>18 (25.01)</td><td>9 (31.86)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><bold>Would you prefer the filming to be carried out by a same sex operator?</bold></td><td rowspan="3">0.080</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>65 (59.63)</td><td>18 (45.00)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>44 (40.37)</td><td>22 (55.00)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><bold>If you were unconscious, would you be happy for your next of kin to agree to your treatment being filmed?</bold></td><td rowspan="3">0.542</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>41 (35.65)</td><td>15 (34.88)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>74 (64.35)</td><td>28 (65.12)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><bold>Would you want to view footage prior to use?</bold></td><td rowspan="3">0.395</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>27 (24.32)</td><td>12 (27.90)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>84 (75.68)</td><td>31 (72.10)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><bold>Would you like an opportunity to ask questions and be debriefed</bold>?</td><td rowspan="3">0.460</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>19 (17.59)</td><td>6 (15.00)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>89 (82.41)</td><td>34 (85.00)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><bold>Would you prefer images to be left in the recording if complications arose?</bold></td><td rowspan="3">0.573</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>36 (36.36)</td><td>13 (36.11)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>63 (63.64)</td><td>23 (63.89)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><bold>Would you mind medical/surgical colleagues viewing the recordings?</bold></td><td rowspan="3">0.210</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>86 (78.18)</td><td>36 (85.71)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>24 (21.82)</td><td>6 (14.29)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><bold>Would you want filming to stop if complications arose?</bold></td><td rowspan="3">0.050</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>50 (80.64)</td><td>15 (62.50)</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>12 (19.36)</td><td>9 (37.50)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></floats-group></pmc><affiliations><list><country><li>Royaume-Uni</li></country><region><li>Angleterre</li><li>Grand Londres</li></region><settlement><li>Londres</li></settlement></list><tree><country name="Royaume-Uni"><noRegion><name sortKey="Sharp, Gary" sort="Sharp, Gary" uniqKey="Sharp G" first="Gary" last="Sharp">Gary Sharp</name></noRegion><name sortKey="Mazzon, Giorgio" sort="Mazzon, Giorgio" uniqKey="Mazzon G" first="Giorgio" last="Mazzon">Giorgio Mazzon</name><name sortKey="Thilagarajah, Ranjan" sort="Thilagarajah, Ranjan" uniqKey="Thilagarajah R" first="Ranjan" last="Thilagarajah">Ranjan Thilagarajah</name></country></tree></affiliations></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Ticri/CIDE/explor/HapticV1/Data/Ncbi/Merge
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 003963 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Ncbi/Merge/biblio.hfd -nk 003963 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Ticri/CIDE
|area= HapticV1
|flux= Ncbi
|étape= Merge
|type= RBID
|clé= PMC:4434208
|texte= A cross-sectional pilot study to investigate patient attitudes and perception regarding the use of real time digital recording of urological procedures for research and teaching purposes
}}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Ncbi/Merge/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:26005568" \
| HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Ncbi/Merge/biblio.hfd \
| NlmPubMed2Wicri -a HapticV1
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.23. |  |