Robotic Surgical Training in the Northern Deanery: A trainee-led evaluation in line with GIRFT recommendations

TL;DR

This study evaluates trainee experiences with robotic surgery training in the UK's Northern Deanery, highlighting support for formal training but concerns about unequal access.

Contribution

The paper provides a trainee-led evaluation of robotic surgery training aligned with GIRFT recommendations, focusing on trainee perceptions and training needs.

Findings

Most trainees support formal RAS training and see it as important for their specialty's future.

Trainees report mixed impacts of RAS on training, with concerns about inequitable access across trusts.

Trainees feel competent in simulation and bedside skills but have limited console access.

Abstract

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has transformed UK surgical practice, with GIRFT emphasising the need for structured and equitable training. This study explores trainee experiences of robotic surgery training within the first UK deanery to adopt a centralised robotic surgery programme. A mixed-methods cross-sectional survey was distributed to surgical trainees in the Northern Deanery, collecting quantitative data on RAS experience, expectations, and training provision. Qualitative data on perceived benefits and barriers, was analysed thematically. There were 60 survey respondents. Support for formal RAS training was near-universal (97%), and most trainees considered RAS relevant to current training (87%), and important for the future of their specialty (90%). However, 80% perceived access to RAS as inequitable across trusts within the region. Most trainees felt competent to observe robotic cases, complete simulation modules, and bedside assist by ST3–4 level, with many reporting readiness for supervised console operating during mid-stage higher training. Mean exposure included 21 ± 21 observed cases, 10.3 ± 12.8 simulation hours, 25 ± 30 bedside-assisted cases, and 4 ± 9 console cases. Perceived impacts of RAS on training were mixed: 21% reported positive effects, 47% negative effects, and 32% neutral. 77% of trainees agreed that access to robotics would influence where they work as a consultant. Thematically, trainees valued “availability of robotic systems”, “consultant engagement and training culture”, “structured training pathways and curriculum”, and “simulation-based training”. Trainees feel competent for early development in simulation, and bedside skills but there remains limited console access locally. There is trainee consensus to necessitate recognition of RAS training formally in the ISCP curriculum.

The online version contains supplementary material, including a list of Northern Robotic Collaborators, available at 10.1007/s11701-026-03256-1.

Figures