Opportunity to Perform – Should Simulation-Based Surgical Training be Provided on Demand or on Supply?

Abstract

Introduction The aim of the study was to assess the surgical case volume of residents before and after simulation-based training in hip fracture surgery provided on demand versus knee and shoulder arthroscopy provided on supply. Materials and Methods A retrospective analysis of surgical case volume in hip fracture surgery and arthroscopic shoulder and knee procedures 90 days before and after simulation-based training of either procedure. Sixty-nine orthopedic residents voluntarily participating in either simulation-based training. Hip fracture surgery simulation was provided on supply, ie, whenever 1–2 residents applied for the course, while the arthroscopic simulation course was supplied twice yearly. Results Thirty-four residents participated in hip fracture simulation on demand and 35 residents participated in arthroscopic simulation on supply. The surgical case volume of hip fracture osteosynthesis increased from median 2.5 (range: 0–21) to median 11.5 (1–17) from 90 days before to the 90 days after the simulation-based training on demand. The median difference was 6.5 procedures (p < 0.0003). On the contrary, the surgical case volume in shoulder and knee arthroscopy was low both before and after the simulation on supply, ie, median 2 (0–22) before and median 1 (0–31) after. The median difference was 0 (p = 0.21). Conclusions Simulation on demand was associated with increased opportunities to perform in the clinical environment after the simulation-based training compared with simulation on supply. Simulation-based training should be aligned with the clinical rotation of the residents. Simulation on demand instead of supply on fixed dates may overcome this organizational issue of aligning training with the opportunity to perform.