Expert consensus on robotic colorectal surgery proctoring in the <scp>UK</scp>

BACKGROUND: The adoption of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in colorectal practice is accelerating, supported by growing evidence of clinical benefit. Robotic proctors play a critical role in ensuring safe dissemination by guiding and supporting new users. However, national standards outlining their responsibilities, training and governance remain undefined. METHODS: All UK-based colorectal robotic proctors within the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) were invited to participate in a consensus process structured around eight predefined domains. These were informed by a prior scoping meeting. Participants received a summary report and had the opportunity to propose additional themes. A modified nominal group technique was used to generate and vote on statements. Final statements were circulated for further input post-meeting. RESULTS: Twelve of twenty invited proctors participated. A total of 32 statements were generated; 30 reached consensus and 21 were unanimously supported. Key recommendations include: (1) Robotic proctorship in the UK should encompass proctoring, preceptoring, coaching and mentoring tailored to individual surgeon needs. (2) Proctors should complete a robotic-specific 'Train the Trainers' course or equivalent. (3) Proctors must ensure the proctee can safely operate the system whilst maintaining patient safety and delivering structured feedback. (4) Industry should support communication, theatre team training and structured feedback mechanisms. (5) A distinction should be made between first- and second-generation proctors to support safe innovation in new robotic platforms. CONCLUSION: This expert consensus provides one of the first structured frameworks for robotic proctoring in colorectal surgery, aiming to improve training consistency, professional standards and patient safety.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Colorectal Disease
Published
2026-05-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.70468
Primary Topic
Surgical Simulation and Training
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Expert consensus on robotic colorectal surgery proctoring in the UK

K L Campbell, Oroog Ali, Deena Harji MBChB, Kai Leong et al.
Colorectal Disease
Surgical Simulation and Training
article

Expert consensus on robotic colorectal surgery proctoring in the UK

K L Campbell, Oroog Ali, Deena Harji MBChB, Kai Leong, Danilo Mišković, Charles Evans, Julian Hance, J. Morton, Frances Dixon, Douglas Speake, Nuha Yassin, Richard Justin Davies, Philip Varghese, Shakil Ahmed, Subash Vasudevan, Irshad A Shaikh, Matthew Harris, Anu Krishna, Jim Khan, Taner Shakir, Barrie Keeler
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The adoption of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in colorectal practice is accelerating, supported by growing evidence of clinical benefit. Robotic proctors play a critical role in ensuring safe dissemination by guiding and supporting new users. However, national standards outlining their responsibilities, training and governance remain undefined. METHODS: All UK-based colorectal robotic proctors within the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) were invited to participate in a consensus process structured around eight predefined domains. These were informed by a prior scoping meeting. Participants received a summary report and had the opportunity to propose additional themes. A modified nominal group technique was used to generate and vote on statements. Final statements were circulated for further input post-meeting. RESULTS: Twelve of twenty invited proctors participated. A total of 32 statements were generated; 30 reached consensus and 21 were unanimously supported. Key recommendations include: (1) Robotic proctorship in the UK should encompass proctoring, preceptoring, coaching and mentoring tailored to individual surgeon needs. (2) Proctors should complete a robotic-specific 'Train the Trainers' course or equivalent. (3) Proctors must ensure the proctee can safely operate the system whilst maintaining patient safety and delivering structured feedback. (4) Industry should support communication, theatre team training and structured feedback mechanisms. (5) A distinction should be made between first- and second-generation proctors to support safe innovation in new robotic platforms. CONCLUSION: This expert consensus provides one of the first structured frameworks for robotic proctoring in colorectal surgery, aiming to improve training consistency, professional standards and patient safety.

Colorectal DiseaseVol. 28(5)
University of East Anglia (GB), University of Leeds (GB), University of Liverpool (GB), University of Cambridge (GB), Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (GB), Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (GB), University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust (GB), Western General Hospital (GB), Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB), University Hospital Coventry (GB), Milton Keynes Hospital (GB), Warwickshire Hospital (GB), Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Ninewells Hospital (GB), University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust (GB), Queen Alexandra Hospital (GB), University of Manchester (GB), Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Bridge University (SS), East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust (GB), St. Mark's Hospital (US), Wellcome / EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences (GB), NIHR Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre (GB), Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB), St Mark's Hospital (GB), University College London (GB), Anglia Ruskin University (GB), University of Portsmouth (GB), University of Buckingham (GB)
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Surgical Simulation and Training
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.