Table 1.
Survey results of 1-way training where proctors demonstrated procedures on prostate phantoms to physicians watching remotely. Only 7 of the 18 survey questions were analyzed
| Question |
Faculty (N = 7) |
Attendee (N = 31) |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes (%) | No (%) | Other (%) | Yes (%) | No (%) | Other (%) | |
| Does the simulated prostate resemble human tissue? | 7 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 31 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Is the prostate phantom easy to set up? | 7 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | NA⁎ | NA⁎ | NA⁎ |
| Did prostate phantom biopsy mimic patient biopsy? | 4 (57.2) | 0 (0) | 3 (42.8) Not done |
23 (74.2) | 0 (0) | 8 (25.8) Do not know |
| Did the MRI file replicate a patient MRI? | 6 (86) | 0 (0) | 1 (14) Not used |
19 (61) | 0 (0) | 9 (29) Do not know 3(10) Missing |
| Is there a teaching advantage using a phantom versus a live patient? | 7 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 26 (83.9) | 5 (16.1) | 0 (0) |
| Is the phantom an ideal teaching tool for residents and attendings? | 6 (85.7) | 1 (14.3) | 0 (0) | 24 (77.4) | 2 (6.5) | 5 (16.1) Missing |
| Do you believe that 30 min of training was adequate? | 3 (42.8) | 1 (14) | 3 (42.8) Attendees need hands on practice | 6 (19.4) | 10 (32.2) | 12 (38.7) Need to practice on phantom 3 (9.7) Does not replace live patient |
⁎
Question only asked of faculty respondents.