Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Development and content validation of a competency-based assessment tool for penile prosthesis surgery

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 34, pages 187–194 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The aim of this study was to identify potential hazards for the inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) surgical procedure and from this develop and content validate an IPP intraoperative competency-based assessment tool. A multi-institutional longitudinal prospective observational study was conducted over a 6-month period. Healthcare Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (HFMEA) methodology was used to prospectively risk assess the IPP procedure using a collaborative multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach. International content validation of the developed tool was then undertaken via face-to-face meetings and WebEx seminars. A total of 22 h of observation led to the construction of a detailed process map consisting of 11 stages and 49 sub-stages. HFMEA identified 50 failure modes and 45 failure mode effects, nine failure modes were excluded after analysis leaving 41 key failure modes included in the checklist. The high-risk steps identified were related to corporal dilatation, incorrect sizing of the prosthesis cylinders and incorrect localisation of the superficial inguinal ring for blind reservoir placement. The final content validated IPP assessment tool (PPAT) consisted of 13 processes and 27 sub-processes. We concluded that HFMEA methodology successfully allowed for the identification of key steps within the IPP procedure from which the PPAT was developed. Formal international content validation confirmed that all key procedural steps were included in the PPAT and that completion of all steps would indicate trainee competency in the procedure. Further validation is required before the tool can be used to assess learning curves for the IPP procedure.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: HFMEA steps.
Fig. 2: Decision Tree.
Fig. 3: PPAT development.
Fig. 4: IPP surgery.
Fig. 5: Final PPAT.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Muneer A, Kalsi J, Nazareth I, Arya M. Erectile dysfunction. BMJ. 2014;348:2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Scherzer ND, Dick B, Gabrielson AT, Alzweri LM, Hellstrom WJG. Penile prosthesis complications: planning, prevention, and decision making. Sex. Med Rev. 2019;7:349–59.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Falcone M, Pucci L, Garaffa G, Cocci A, Gillo A, Capece M, et al. An outcomes analysis of penile prosthesis implantation following radical cystoprostatectomy and urinary diversion: a multicentric retrospective cohort study. Int J Impot Res. 2020;32:126–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lavien G, Churukanti G, Kishor A, Kramer A. Resident education in penile prosthesis surgery. Current sexual. Health Rep. 2015;7:140–4.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Robinson R, O’Flynn KJ. Indicative operative numbers in urology training in the UK and Ireland. J Clin Urol. 2015;8:188–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Henry GD, Kansal NS, Callaway M, Grigsby T, Henderson J, Noble J, et al. Centers of excellence concept and penile prostheses: an outcome analysis. J Urol. 2009;181:1264–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ahmed K, Miskovic D, Darzi A, Athanasiou T, Hanna GB. Observational tools for assessment of procedural skills: a systematic review. Am J Surg. 2011;202:469–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tang B, Hanna GB, Joice P, Cuschieri A. Identification and categorization of technical errors by Observational Clinical Human Reliability Assessment (OCHRA) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Arch Surg. 2004;139:1215–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. DeRosier J, Stalhandske E, Bagian JP, Nudell T. Using health care failure mode and effect analysis: the VA National Center for patient safety’s prospective risk analysis system. Jt Comm J Qual Improvement. 2002;28:248–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Trost LW, Boonjindasup AG, Hellstrom WJG. Comparison of infrapubic versus transcrotal approaches for inflatable penile prosthesis placement: a multi-institution report. Int J Impot Res. 2015;27:86–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Levine LA, Hoeh MP. Review of penile prosthetic reservoir: complications and presentation of a modified reservoir placement technique. J Sex Med. 2012;9:2759–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Vakalopoulos I, Kampantais S, Gkagkalidis K, Ioannidis S, Dimitriadis G, Patsialas C, et al. Complications of inflatable penile prostheses implantation classified according to the modified Clavien system. Adv Androl. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/127693.

  13. Sharma D, Smith RP. Troubleshooting intraoperative complications of penile prosthesis placement. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;Suppl 5:S892–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nousiainen MT, Mironova P, Hynes M, Glover Takahashi S, Reznick R, Kraemer W, et al. Eight-year outcomes of a competency-based residency training program in orthopedic surgery. Med Teach. 2018;40:1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. de Villiers MR, de Villiers PJT, Kent AP. The Delphi technique in health sciences education research. Med Teach. 2005;27:639–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wood C. The misplace of litigation in medical practice. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998;38:365–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. King AB, Klausner AP, Johnson CM, Moore BW, Wilson SK, Grob BM. Expert training with standardized operative technique helps establish a successful penile prosthetics program for urologic resident education. J Sex Med. 2011;8:2726–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bath J, Lawrence P, Chandra A, O’Connell J, Uijtdehaage S, Jimenez JC, et al. Standardization is superior to traditional methods of teaching open vascular simulation. J Vasc Surg. 2011;53:229–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, Lipsitz SR, Breizat A-HS, Dellinger EP, et al. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N. Engl J Med. 2009;360:491–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ahmed K, Khan N, Khan MS, Dasgupta P. Development and content validation of a surgical safety checklist for operating theatres that use robotic technology. BJU Int. 2013;111:1161–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Katz BF, Gaunay GS, Barazani Y, Nelson CJ, Moreira DM, Dinlenc CZ, et al. Use of a preoperative checklist reduces risk of penile prosthesis infection. J Urol. 2014;192:130–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lovegrove C, Novara G, Mottrie A, Guru KA, Brown M, Challacombe B, et al. Structured and modular training pathway for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP): validation of the RARP assessment score and learning curve assessment. Eur Urol. 2016;69:526–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Shaqdan K, Aran S, Daftari Besheli L, Abujudeh H. Root-cause analysis and health failure mode and effect analysis: two leading techniques in health care quality assessment. J Am Coll Radiol. 2014;11:572–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lyons M, Adams S, Woloshynowych M, Vincent C. Human reliability analysis in healthcare: a review of techniques. Int J Risk Saf Med IOS Press. 2004;16:223–37. p.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

AM acknowledges support from the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. Authors acknowledge contributions to the study from: Maarten Albersen (MA), Nim Christopher (NC), Ege Can Şerefoğlu (ES), Karen Briggs (KB), Gordon Muir, Arie Parnham (AP), Pippa Sangster (PS), Majid Shabbir (MS), Marta Skrodzka (MSK), Andrew Vicens (AV), Tet Yap (TY).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MRC Centre for Transplantation, King’s College London, King’s Health Partners, London, UK

    Lauren Wells & Kamran Ahmed

  2. Department of Urology, Kings College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London, UK

    Kamran Ahmed

  3. Institute of Andrology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

    David J. Ralph & Asif Muneer

  4. Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK

    David J. Ralph & Asif Muneer

  5. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University College London Hospital, London, UK

    Asif Muneer

Authors
  1. Lauren Wells
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kamran Ahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David J. Ralph
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Asif Muneer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Asif Muneer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wells, L., Ahmed, K., Ralph, D.J. et al. Development and content validation of a competency-based assessment tool for penile prosthesis surgery. Int J Impot Res 34, 187–194 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-021-00415-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-021-00415-w

Search

Advanced search

Quick links