Introduction: As the role of robot-assisted surgery continues to expand, development of standardised and validated training programmes is becoming increasingly important. We aim to compare current robotic training curricula with training in aviation, to evaluate current similarities and to provide insight into how healthcare can further learn from replicating initiatives in aviation training.
Methods: A systematic literature review of the current evidence was conducted online and relevant publications and information were identified. Evaluation and comparison between training in robotic surgery and the aviation industry was performed.
Results: There are significant similarities between modern robotic training curricula and pilot training. Both undergo basic training before proceeding to advanced training. Aviation training methods include classroom instruction, e-learning and practical training, in both the aircraft and flight simulation training devices. Both surgeon and pilot training include technical and procedural instruction as well as training in non-technical skills such as crisis management, decision making, leadership and communication. However, there is more regulation in aviation, with international standards for training curricula, simulation devices and instructors/trainers that are legally binding. Continuous learning with re-qualification with benchmarked high stakes tests are also mandatory throughout a pilot's and instructor's career.
Conclusion: Robotic surgeons and pilots roles have many fundamental similarities. Both work with expensive and complex technology requiring high levels of skills, within working environments with high physiological and psychological stress levels. Whilst many initiatives in aviation training have already been replicated in surgical training there remain considerable differences in regulation. Adopting established and proven aviation methods of assessment and regulation could help robotic surgical training become more efficient, more effective and ultimately safer.
Keywords: Non-technical skills; Patient safety; Proficiency-based progression; Robotic-assisted surgery; Surgical education; Training.