https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Index ${session.getAttribute("locale")} 5 https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:34988 Tue 03 Sep 2019 18:01:54 AEST ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:39158 n = 17 in 2015, n = 16 in 2016) were supplied with a box trainer, associated equipment and instructions on self‐directed training. A program was designed and implemented in 2015 comprising of ten weekly laparoscopic skills tasks and modified in 2016 to eight monthly tasks. Half of the participants were randomly allocated a supervisor. Participants performed baseline and post‐training assessments of laparoscopic skills in a box trainer task (thread transfer) and virtual reality simulator tasks (laparoscopic tubal ligation and bilateral oophorectomy). Results: Trainees in 2015 demonstrated an improvement in the median time to complete the laparoscopic tubal ligation task (baseline 124 s vs post‐training 91 s, P = 0.041). There was no difference in the number of tubal ligation bleeding incidents, or in the time taken to complete the box trainer thread transfer task. In 2016 trainees demonstrated improvement in tubal ligation time (baseline 251 vs 71 post‐training, P = 0.021) and bilateral oophorectomy time (baseline 891 s vs 504 post‐training, P = 0.025). There was no significant difference in other outcome measures. There was no difference found in performance when groups were compared by supervisor allocation. Conclusion: A take‐home box trainer simulation‐training program was associated with improvement in laparoscopic skills. This type of program may improve trainee access to simulation training.]]> Thu 19 May 2022 19:03:46 AEST ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:25850 Sat 24 Mar 2018 07:25:56 AEDT ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:47869 p =.003), have clear margins (72.2% vs 41.9%, p =.015), and meet "all criteria" (46% vs 20.6%, p =.043) than trainee specimens before training. There was no change in depth adequacy (70.3% vs 67.7%, p =.99). Median trainee procedure time reduced from 18 minutes (interquartile range = 11-24) before training to 8 minutes after training (interquartile range = 6-11) (p = <0.001). There was no significant change in operating time or specimen quality from LEEP procedures performed by attendings (who did not use the simulator). Trainee and attending procedural outcomes were similar after training. Trainees had mostly positive views on the training, though reported time constraints as a barrier to simulation. Conclusions: After the introduction of an LEEP simulation training program, operative time and specimen quality from trainee procedures seemed to improve.]]> Fri 03 Feb 2023 14:28:58 AEDT ]]>