JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY

Volume 29, Number 7, July 2015 General Research

ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
Pp. 821–829
DOI: 10.1089/end.2014.0580

Would You Want to Be the Patient? ‘‘Live Surgical

Broadcast’’ or ‘‘As-Live Unedited Surgical Broadcast’’

William Finch, MBBS, BSc Hons, FRCS (Urol),1 Junaid Masood, MBBS,2
Noor Buchholz, MBBS, MD, FSSU, FKNMG, FFMLM,2
Benjamin W. Turney, MA, MSc, PhD, MRCS,3 Daron Smith, MA, MBBCh, MD, FRCS (Urol),4
and Oliver Wiseman, MB BChir, MA, FRCS (Urol) 5

Abstract
Objective: To evaluate patient safety, educational value, and ethical issues surrounding ‘‘Live surgical broadcast’’
(LSB) and ‘‘As-live surgical broadcast’’ (ALB) using data obtained from urologic delegates attending two recent
endourology meetings in the United Kingdom.
Subjects and Methods: Two hundred twelve delegates at the UK section meeting of the Société Internationale
d’Urologie (SIU) were invited to complete an online survey using SurveyMonkey to compare their previous
perceptions of LSB and ALB, and to compare their current experience of ALB to previous experience of LSB.
One hundred three delegates at the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) Endourology meeting
used live voting keypads to compare their experience of LSB and ALB simultaneously, as well as comparing
their current experience of ALB to previous experience of LSB. Responses were recorded using a Likert scale.
Results: One hundred sixty-five responses were analyzed from the meetings. Most delegates were in specialist
practice as a consultant or trainee (89.1%). LSB had been witnessed more than ALB (87.1% vs 66.6%,
p = 0.049). Based on previous experiences, the educational value of both formats was felt similar, but delegates
felt there were significant patient safety benefits with ALB over LSB. Delegates were significantly less likely to
recommend a friend or family, or volunteer themselves to be a patient in an LSB setting. On-the-day com-
parison of LSB and ALB shows a similar educational value to both formats, but with significantly less concern
for the surgeon and patient’s outcome with ALB.
Conclusion: ALB offers similar educational opportunities to delegates when compared with LSB, while ap-
pearing to offer significant welfare benefits to both surgeon and patient. Further studies are required to ob-
jectively quantify these subjective observations.

Introduction immediate observer feedback.1 Nevertheless, increasing

concern for patient safety, educational value, and financial/

L ive surgical demonstration has been the cornerstone

of surgical education for centuries. Halstead’s educa-
tional philosophy of ‘‘see one, do one, teach one’’ are familiar
professional conflicts of interest has called into question its
ongoing practice.2 The majority of respondents of a recent
American surgical survey felt LSB should not continue in-
words to surgeons. The scope of surgical demonstrations has definitely in its current format.3 Recently, due to high-profile
increased significantly in recent times with advances in au- complications with LSB, several international medical soci-
diovisual technology and minimally invasive surgery. eties have chosen to abandon the practice,4 while others have
Live surgical broadcast (LSB) enables high-definition published a policy and framework within which LSB can
images to be streamed directly to audiences from around the continue.2
globe. Some argue that the real-life nature of LSB provides As-live surgical broadcast (ALB) enables an unedited
an educational perspective and intrigue not gained through demonstration of a surgical case. The ability to have the
edited recordings or textbooks. It has been suggested that surgeon hosting, commenting on, and debating their case as-
LSB can improve the procedure and surgical quality through live, without the distraction of having to operate simultaneously,
1
Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trusts, Norwich, United Kingdom.
2
Barts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
3
Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.
4
University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
5
Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

821
822
may provide the necessary useful education from LSB
without the suggested disadvantages.
In this study, we evaluate patient safety, educational value,
and ethical issues surrounding LSB and ALB using data
obtained from urologic delegates attending two recent UK
endourology meetings.
Subjects and Methods
Questionnaire-based studies were delivered to delegates
attending the Société Internationale d’Urologie (SIU) U K
section meeting in December 2013 and the British Asso-
ciation of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) Endourology Sec-
tion meeting in March 2014. The two questionnaires asked
questions relating to many important aspects of surgical
broadcast, including educational, patient safety, and ethi-
cal issues. The two questionnaires are shown in full in
Appendix 1 and 2.
Delegates at the SIU UK section meeting watched ALB of
ultramini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), diagnostic
flexible ureteroscopy, and combined supine PCNL with ret-
rograde intrarenal surgery. An electronic link to this survey
was subsequently emailed out to 212 delegates using the
online survey software SurveyMonkey in December 2013.
Delegates were asked to compare their previous perception of
LSB and ALB and to compare their current experience of
ALB to previous experience of LSB.
Delegates at the BAUS Endourology meeting watched
both the LSB and ALB of PCNL and laparoscopic nephrec-
tomy on the same day. Live voting keypads were used at the
meeting to compare 103 delegates’ perception of LSB and
ALB simultaneously, as well as comparing their current ex-
perience of ALB to previous experience of LSB.
No plenary or educational sessions debating LSB and ALB
were provided at the two meetings. Both survey formats were
anonymous and contained questions with fixed answer
choices. No remuneration was offered for survey completion.
The survey queried several nonidentifying demographic
points, including the extent of previous experience of LSB/
ALB and level of training. The delegates’ answers were re-
corded using Likert scales. A 10-point Likert scale with ‘‘1’’
representing ‘‘totally disagree’’ and ‘‘10’’ representing ‘‘to-
tally agree’’ was used in addition to a 5-point Likert scale
with ‘‘1’’ representing ‘‘strongly disagree,’’ ‘‘3’’ represent-
ing ‘‘neutral,’’ and ‘‘5’’ representing ‘‘strongly agree.’’ A
further 5-point Likert scale was used with ‘‘1’’ representing
‘‘significantly less,’’ ‘‘3’’ representing ‘‘equal,’’ and ‘‘5’’
representing ‘‘significantly more’’ and all Likert scales were
subsequently converted to 5-point scales for comparison. The
Likert scale was used to enable the numerical standardization
of a subjective variable. The Likert data were treated in this
study as the ordinal data. Statistical comparison of the data
was made using a Mann–Whitney U-test.
Results
Demographics
Sixty-two responses were analyzed from the SIU meeting
representing a survey response rate of 35%. One hundred
three responses were analyzed from the live voting report
generated at the BAUS meeting, with a survey response rate
of 62%. Most delegates were aged 30 to 39 years (49.2%).
FINCH ET AL.
Most delegates were in specialist practice either as a con-
sultant urologist (67.1%) or trainee Urologist (22%).
LSB had been previously witnessed by delegates, signifi-
cantly, more frequently than ALB (87.1% vs 66.6%, p = 0.049).
Most delegates had seen LSB greater than 10 times (48.6%),
whereas most delegates had only seen ALB 1–3 times (42.8%)
(Fig. 1.)
Previous experiences and educational value
The educational value that the delegates had derived from
previous experiences of LSB and ALB is shown in Figure 2.
Delegates reported no differences in the ability to learn new
tips, manage complications, or question the surgeon/panel.
Overall, based on their previous experience, the delegates felt
the education value of the two formats was similar.
Previous experiences and patient safety
The delegates’ experience of patient safety from previous
experiences of LSB and ALB is shown in Figure 3. They felt
that there were significant patient safety benefits with ALB
over LSB, including a less pressurized surgeon, less concern
over patients’ well-being, and the patient’s eventual out-
come. All parameters assessed reached a statistical signifi-
cance ( p < 0.05) in favor of ALB.
Previous experiences—friends and family test
Delegates were asked a ‘‘friends and family’’ test style
question based on their previous experiences of LSB and
ALB (Fig. 4). They were significantly less likely to recom-
mend a friend or family member to be a patient in an LSB
setting, and were also significantly less likely to volunteer to
be a patient themselves ( p < 0.05) in an LSB format.
Previous experiences of LSB with a patient advocate
Delegates at the SIU meeting who had witnessed LSB pre-
viously, were asked about any experience they had of an LSB
that included a patient advocate. Overall, 80% of delegates felt
the idea of a patient advocate would protect the patient during an
LSB. Of the 27.8% of delegates who had witnessed an LSB with
a patient advocate, 20% had witnessed the patient advocate
intervene during the LSB. Interestingly, a further 66.7% of
delegates felt that the patient advocate should have intervened,
during an LSB they had witnessed, but had not.
On-the-day comparison of LSB and ALB
Based on delegates simultaneous experience of LSB and
ALB at the BAUS Endourology meeting (Fig. 5), the
FIG. 1. Previous exposure to surgical broadcasts.
WOULD YOU WANT TO BE THE PATIENT?
delegates felt the educational value of the two formats was
similar. There was no perceived difference in the ability to
learn how to manage a complication between the two formats.
They felt that learning new tips/tricks from the surgeon was
significantly more likely to happen with ALB. The delegates
also perceived the surgeon to be less pressurized/anxious
during an ALB (Fig. 6). Overall, there was significantly less
concern with ALB that the patient’s outcome may have been
compromised. Both these last safety parameters assessed,
reached statistical significance ( p < 0.05) in favor of ALB.
On-the-day comparison of LSB and ALB—friends
and family test
Delegates were also asked a ‘‘friends and family’’ test style
question based on their current experience of LSB and ALB
(Fig. 7).They were significantly less likely to recommend a
friend or family member to be a patient in an LSB format, and
were significantly less likely to be a patient themselves
( p < 0.05) in an LSB setting.
823
FIG. 2. Previous experiences and
educational value.
Experience of ALB
Delegates were asked a further set of questions to clarify
their current experience and perception of ALB (Fig. 8).
There was significantly less concern for both the surgeon
and the patient with ALB. From an educational perspective,
the ability to see intraoperative complications managed was
felt to be similar to LSB, however, the ability to demon-
strate a complex surgery and visualize different surgical
views/radiological images/fluoroscopy images was felt to be
significantly better with ALB. The delegates also favored
ALB as a format for questioning the operating surgeon.
Overall, they felt that the educational benefits of ALB were
equal to those of LSB, and that LSB was not significantly
superior in the educational benefit it provides.
Discussion
Instruction of trainees by surgeons while operating is still the
cornerstone of surgical training throughout the world. As
FIG. 3. Previous experiences
and patient safety.
824
FIG. 4. Previous experiences—
friends and family test.
technology advances, this practice continues to adapt and we
are now in an era where broadcasting surgical procedures live,
as-live, or in edited forms to audiences is common.5,6 LSB
sessions are often popular sessions, but it is unclear from an
objective perspective what draws delegates. Several benefits
have previously been suggested, including the knowledge
gained from closely observing an experienced surgeon handling
unexpected intraoperative issues as well as examining and peer
reviewing cases in a manner that is not possible with an edited
video.7 It has been previously reported in a survey of delegates
at an interventional vascular meeting that 82% felt live cases
had a greater educational value than a recorded video.8
Concerns have been leveled at LSB with regard to patient
safety. During a live broadcast of a percutaneous coronary
intervention at a meeting in Europe in 2013, an intraoperative
complication requiring defibrillation was identified first by
members of a panel and an audience who were watching the
FIG. 5. On-the-day comparison and
educational value.
FINCH ET AL.
procedure remotely with the surgeons explaining live; ‘‘.we
did a mistake while talking during the live broadcast.’’.9
Other high-profile complications with LSB have been pub-
lished in the nonpeer-reviewed press.4 As a consequence, the
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Amer-
ican College of Surgeons, Japanese Society for Cardiovascular
Surgery, and the Japanese Urological Association have chosen
to abandon the practice of LSB.3 Recently, while recognizing
LSB’s potential unique educational merits, the European As-
sociation of Urology (EAU) has acknowledged the concerns of
the wider community and published a policy and framework to
facilitate the safe delivery of EAU-endorsed LSBs.2
There are several aspects to consider with regard to the
debate over LSB. Some have reported that outcomes of live
broadcast procedures are equivalent to those found in cases
performed without observers. An article on live transmitted
carotid artery stenting showed that technical success was
WOULD YOU WANT TO BE THE PATIENT?
achieved in 99.5% of cases with complication rates similar to
those reported in the literature.10 A further article published
in the cardiovascular literature this year, looking at trans-
catheter aortic valve intervention live transmission, when
performed by experienced operators, can be done safely with
similar outcomes when compared with nontransmitted
cases.11 Within the urological literature, an article looking at
the outcomes of 39 live broadcast robotic partial nephrecto-
mies reported that the outcomes were not significantly dif-
ferent to those of 847 standard procedures.12 Not all the
literature is in agreement though. Endoscopic retrograde
cholangiopancreatography cases performed live over a 5-
year period were matched to control cases and were found to
have a significantly inferior complete success rate, although
the complication rate did not differ.13 Interestingly, subgroup
analysis also showed a trend toward lower success rate with
visiting faculty compared with local faculty.
825
FIG. 6. On-the-day comparison
and patient safety.
Operating in a live forum brings with it specific challenges
for the surgeon. Ninety members of the American Associa-
tion of Genitourinary Surgeons (AAGUS) responded to a
survey in 2012.3 93% had performed LSB as visiting pro-
fessors, and 73% of them had rated their anxiety levels as
moderate, high, or very high when doing these procedures.
Approximately, 40% reported that excessive conversation in
theatre was a major distraction. Most telling from this survey
was the ‘‘friends and family’’ test that showed only 28.2% of
AAGUS would let a visiting faculty member operate on them
or a family member.’’ A recent survey of urologists attending
two major international meetings in 2012 reported that a slim
majority (58%) of urologists would allow themselves or a
family member to be operated on. Our data add further to this
debate, with a clear consensus based on previous and con-
temporary experiences of UK surgeons. There is significantly
more concern over the patient and surgeon welfare in the LSB
FIG. 7. On-the-day comparison—
friends and family test.
826
FIG. 8. As-live surgical broadcast—current experience.
setting, and thus, delegates are significantly less likely to
recommend a friend or family member, or be willing to be a
patient themselves in the LSB setting.
If most surgeons, or even a substantial minority at 40%,
would not allow live broadcast surgery on themselves, should
patients continue to be subjected to it? A commentary on the
role of LSB highlights a patient’s perspective of this form of
broadcast—namely that of pride in facilitating the education
of surgeons.14 Patient cooperation is paramount in provid-
ing all surgical education, and is firmly based on a trusting
doctor–patient working relationship. If as surgeons we wish
to see LSB continue as an education tool, having a surgeon
operate on his own patient, with his own theatre team, in his
own hospital, may be the model that is required to ensure this
trusting doctor–patient working is maintained.
The specifics of educational benefit derived from LSB and
ALB has received considerable attention in the recent litera-
ture. An American study looked at delegates’ perception of
educational benefit with live case demonstration and both
edited and unedited taped case demonstrations.15 The per-
ceived benefit was significantly more with LSB, but few re-
spondents selected ‘‘not helpful’’ or ‘‘minimally helpful’’ for
any of the taped case formats. Having the opportunity to ask
questions and access to the full unedited tape of the case af-
terward was felt to improve the educational benefit of edited
videos. Our study highlighted that some delegates found the
ability to demonstrate complex surgery and visualize different
surgical views/radiological images/fluoroscopy images to be
significantly better with ALB. This may be because the sur-
geon has more time to present this information in the ALB
setting. This enables the audience to make better sense of
complex information relating to the case and, perhaps, draw
more educational benefit from the case as a consequence.
This study is unique as it directly compares and contrasts
delegates’ previous and contemporary experiences of LSB
and ALB. Based on previous experiences at conferences, they
did not perceive a difference in their ability to question the
surgeon and panel, to learn new tips/tricks, or manage com-
plications between the two broadcast modalities.
FINCH ET AL.
These perceptions were broadly replicated when dele-
gates compared broadcast modalities after observation at
two UK conferences. Moreover, delegates felt that with
ALB they were significantly more likely to learn a new tip/
trick. Overall, our study delivers a clear educational message
from UK surgical conference delegates that there is no sig-
nificant difference in the ability of ALB to deliver good
quality education when compared with LSB.
The differing case-mix presented at the two conferences
could suggest that the complexity or invasiveness of the
procedure affects delegates’ attitudes to LSB and ALB. We
feel that the strength of this study is the concurrent evaluation
of more invasive and less invasive procedures, with similar
outcomes from delegates reported.
This study does have limitations. By its nature of being a
survey, it is subject to a number of biases. Despite our expert
panel consensus in constructing the survey, it remains still a
subjective measure of validity. Selection bias is always a
concern when presenting survey data. We do not believe that
delegates supporting ALB are more likely to complete these
surveys than delegates supporting LSB. Canvassing delegates’
opinion at two endourology-based meetings held in the
United Kingdom does introduce a potential multiple response
bias. There was a higher proportion of international delegates
at the SIU meeting and hence, we feel the effect of this on our
results is small. Asking delegates to recall their experiences
of LSB and ALB does introduce a recall bias. A study
comparing LSB and ALB witnessed during the same session
would minimize this bias. However, having a live voting and
follow-up survey that are supportive of each other should be
regarded as another strength of the study, with different data
collection methods producing results that correlate. Another
limitation is a nonresponse bias. Our response rate from
delegates attending the SIU UK section meeting was 35%.
This may have introduced error into our results, however, the
live voting of the majority of delegates in the BAUS En-
dourology meeting, with similar findings to the SIU UK
meeting, validates our results and suggests that the nonre-
sponse bias is minimal. Finally, all our findings with regard to
WOULD YOU WANT TO BE THE PATIENT?
an educational benefit are purely based on the perception of
benefit and not an actual measured educational benefit.
Conclusions
ALB offers similar educational opportunities to delegates
when compared with LSB, while appearing to offer signifi-
cant welfare benefits to both surgeon and patient. Further
studies are required to objectively quantify these subjective
observations.
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
References
1. Mutter D, Bouras G, et al. Digital technologies and quality
improvement in cancer surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol 2005;6:
689–694.
2. Artibani W, et al. EAU policy on live surgery events. Eur
Urol 2014;66:87–97.
3. Duty B, Okhunov Z, et al. Live surgical demonstrations: An
old but increasingly controversial practice. Urology 2012;
79:e7–e11.
4. Kyodo News. The Japan Times. Available at www
.japantimes.co.jp/news/2007/06/07/national/patient-inlive-
surgery-showing-died-soon-after/#.UwuXOoWtz6U
5. Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Minimally invasive ro-
tating platform total knee replacement. Available at:www
.or-live.com/brighamandwomens/1193
6. Museum of Science and Industry, Chicago, IL. Live from
the heart. Available at: www.livefromtheheart.org
7. Brown M, Dasgupta P. Surgery: Protecting patients dur-
ing live urological surgery. Nat Rev Urol 2014;11:249–
250.
8. Sugarman J, Taylor H, Jaff MR, et al. Live case demon-
strations: Attitudes and ethical implications for practice.
Ann Vasc Surg 2011;25:867–872.
9. Live Case Session Showcasing Safety Skirts Disaster at
EuroPCR Shelley Wood, March 03, 2014. Available at www
827
.medscape.com/viewarticle/821344?src = rss&utm_source =
dlvr.it&utm_medium = twitter
10. Franke J, Reimers B, et al. Complications of carotid
stenting during live transmissions. JACC Cardiovasc Interv
2009;2:887–891.
11. Waksman R, Thomas M, et al. The impact of live case
transmission on patient outcomes during transcatheter aortic
valve replacement: Results from the VERITAS study. Car-
diovasc Revasc Med 2014;15:63–68.
12. Mullins JK, Borofsky MS, et al. Live robotic surgery:
Are outcomes compromised? Urology 2012;80:602–
607.
13. Liao Z, Li ZS, et al. How safe and successful are live
demonstrations of therapeutic ERCP? A large multicenter
study. Am J Gastroenterol 2009;104:47–52.
14. Rao AR, Karim O. A benedictory ode to urological live
surgery. BJU Int 2013;112:11–12.
15. Elsamra S, Fakhoury M, et al. The surgical spectacle: A
survey of urologist viewing live case demonstrations. BJU
Int 2014;113:674–678.
Address Correspondence to:
William Finch, MBBS, BSc Hons, FRCS (Urol)
Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals
NHS Foundation Trust
Colney Lane
Norwich, NR4 7UY
United Kingdom
Abbreviations Used
AAGUS ¼ American Association of Genitourinary surgeon
ALB ¼ as-live surgical broadcast
BAUS ¼ British Association of Urological Surgeons
EAU ¼ European Association of Urology
LSB ¼ live surgical broadcast
PCNL ¼ percutaneous nephrolithotomy
SIU ¼ Société Internationale d’Urologie
(Appendix follows/)
828 FINCH ET AL.

Appendix 1
SIU UK Section Meeting Questionnaire
1. Which category includes your age?
2. Which of the following best describes your job?
3. Have you witnessed a ‘‘Live surgical broadcast’’—real-time surgical broadcast previously?
4. How many times have you witnessed a ‘‘Live surgical broadcast’’ at an educational meeting?
5. Concerning ‘‘Live surgical broadcast’’ that you have previously witnessed—Have you:
a. Found it educational?
b. Learnt new tips / tricks from surgeons?
c. Learnt how to manage a complication?
d. Valued speaking / questioning directly the surgeon during surgery?
e. Valued speaking / questioning the chairman / panel compering the surgery?
f. Been concerned that the correct operation is being performed for the patient?
g. Been concerned that the surgeon is more anxious / pressured than usual in theatre?
h. Been concerned that the surgeon may be showing off?
i. Been concerned that the patient’s well-being was not the highest priority?
j. Been concerned that the purpose of the broadcast was not for the benefit of the patient?
k. Been concerned that the patient’s outcome may have been compromised?
6. Concerning ‘‘Live surgical broadcast’’—would you:
a. Be willing to be a patient?
b. Recommend for a friend or family member to be a patient?
7. Have you witnessed a ‘‘Live surgical broadcast’’ with a patient advocate?
8. Concerning the patient advocate:
a. Did the patient advocate intervene during the ‘‘Live surgical broadcast’’?
b. Do you feel the patient advocate should have intervened during the ‘‘Live surgical broadcast’’ you have seen?
c. Do you think the idea of a patient advocate will help to protect patients during a ‘‘Live surgical broadcast’’?
9. How many times have you witnessed an ‘‘As-Live surgical broadcast’’ at an educational meeting?
10. Concerning the ‘‘As-Live surgical broadcast’’ you witnessed—did you:
a. Find it educational?
b. Learn new tips / tricks from surgeons?
c. Learn how to manage a complication?
d. Value speaking / questioning directly the surgeon during surgery?
e. Value speaking / questioning the chairman / panel compering the surgery?
f. Have concerns that the correct operation is being performed for the patient?
g. Have concerns that the surgeon is more anxious / pressured than usual in theatre?
h. Have concerns that the surgeon may be showing off?
i. Have concerns that the patient’s well-being was not the highest priority?
j. Have concerns that the purpose of the broadcast was not for the benefit of the patient?
k. Have concerns that the patient’s outcome may have been compromised?
11. Concerning the ‘‘As-Live surgical broadcast’’—would you:
a. Be willing to be a patient?
b. Recommend for a friend or family member to be a patient?
12. Concerning the ‘‘As-Live surgical broadcast’’ you witnessed—what do you think of:
a. The educational benefits compared with ‘‘Live surgical broadcast’’?
b. The ability to question the surgeon compared with ‘‘Live surgical broadcast?
c. The ability to visualise different surgical views / radiology images / fluoroscopy images compared with ‘‘Live
surgical broadcast’’?
d. The ability to demonstrate a complex surgery compared with ‘‘Live surgical broadcast’’?
e. The ability to see intraoperative complications managed compared with ‘‘Live surgical broadcast’’?
f. Your concern for the patient undergoing the operative procedure compared with ‘‘Live surgical broadcast’’?
g. Your concern for the surgeon performing the operative procedure compared with ‘‘Live surgical broadcast’’?
WOULD YOU WANT TO BE THE PATIENT? 829

Appendix 2
BAUS Endourology Section Meeting Questionnaire
1. The number of times I have seen previously seen a ‘‘Live surgical broadcast’’ is:
2. I am a:
3. Concerning the ‘‘Live surgical broadcast’’ that you have witnessed at the meeting, have you found it educational?
4. Concerning the ‘‘As-live prerecorded surgical broadcast’’ that you have witnessed at this meeting, have you found it
educational?
5. Concerning the ‘‘Live surgical broadcast’’ that you have witnessed at this meeting, have you learnt new tips / tricks
from the surgeons?
6. Concerning the ‘‘As-live prerecorded surgical broadcast’’ that you have witnessed at this meeting, have you learnt
new tips / tricks from the surgeons?
7. Concerning the ‘‘Live surgical broadcast’’ that you have witnessed at this meeting, have you learnt how to manage a
complication?
8. Concerning the ‘‘As-live prerecorded surgical broadcast’’ that you have witnessed at this meeting, have you learnt
how to manage a complication?
9. Concerning the ‘‘Live surgical broadcast’’ that you have witnessed at this meeting, have you been concerned that the
surgeon is more pressured / anxious than usual?
10. Concerning the ‘‘As-live prerecorded surgical broadcast’’ that you have witnessed at this meeting, have you been
concerned that the surgeon is more pressured / anxious than usual?
11. Concerning the ‘‘Live surgical broadcast’’ that you have witnessed at this meeting, have you been concerned that the
patient’s outcome may have been compromised?
12. Concerning the ‘‘As-live prerecorded surgical broadcast’’ that you have witnessed at this meeting, have you been
concerned that the patient’s outcome may have been compromised?
13. Concerning the ‘‘Live surgical broadcast’’ in general, I would be willing to be a patient
14. Concerning the ‘‘As-live prerecorded surgical broadcast’’ in general, I would be willing to be a patient
15. Concerning the ‘‘Live surgical broadcast’’ in general, I would recommend a friend or family to be a patient
16. Concerning the ‘‘As-live prerecorded surgical broadcast’’ in general, I would recommend a friend or family to be a
patient
17. Overall, comparing the educational benefit of ‘‘Live surgical broadcast’’ and ‘‘As-live prerecorded surgical broad-
cast’’—do you agree that ‘‘Live surgical broadcast’’ is more educational?