Coaching in Surgical Education: A Systematic Review.
Journal
Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 01 2022
01 01 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
16
4
2021
medline:
27
1
2022
entrez:
15
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The objectives of this study were to review the coaching literature to (1) characterize the criteria integral to the coaching process, specifically in surgery, and (2) describe how these criteria have been variably implemented in published studies. Coaching is a distinct educational intervention, but within surgery the term is frequently used interchangeably with other more established terms such as teaching and mentoring. A systematic search was performed of the MEDLINE and Cochrane databases to identify studies that used coach/coaching as an intervention for surgeons for either technical or nontechnical skills. Study quality was evaluated using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). A total of 2280 articles were identified and after screening by title, abstract and full text, 35 remained. Thirteen coaching criteria (a-m) were identified in 4 general categories: 1. overarching goal (a. refine performance of an existing skill set), 2. the coach (b. trusting partnership, c. avoids assessment, d. 2-way communication), the coachee (e. voluntary participation, f. self-reflection, g. goal setting, h. action plan, i. outcome evaluation), and the coach-coachee rapport (j. coaching training, k. structured coaching model, l. non-directive, m. open ended questions). Adherence to these criteria ranged from as high of 73% of studies (voluntary participation of coach and coachee) to as low as 7% (use of open-ended questions). Coaching is being used inconsistently within the surgical education literature. Our hope is that with establishing criteria for coaching, future studies will implement this intervention more consistently and allow for better comparison and generalization of results.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
The objectives of this study were to review the coaching literature to (1) characterize the criteria integral to the coaching process, specifically in surgery, and (2) describe how these criteria have been variably implemented in published studies.
BACKGROUND
Coaching is a distinct educational intervention, but within surgery the term is frequently used interchangeably with other more established terms such as teaching and mentoring.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed of the MEDLINE and Cochrane databases to identify studies that used coach/coaching as an intervention for surgeons for either technical or nontechnical skills. Study quality was evaluated using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI).
RESULTS
A total of 2280 articles were identified and after screening by title, abstract and full text, 35 remained. Thirteen coaching criteria (a-m) were identified in 4 general categories: 1. overarching goal (a. refine performance of an existing skill set), 2. the coach (b. trusting partnership, c. avoids assessment, d. 2-way communication), the coachee (e. voluntary participation, f. self-reflection, g. goal setting, h. action plan, i. outcome evaluation), and the coach-coachee rapport (j. coaching training, k. structured coaching model, l. non-directive, m. open ended questions). Adherence to these criteria ranged from as high of 73% of studies (voluntary participation of coach and coachee) to as low as 7% (use of open-ended questions).
CONCLUSIONS
Coaching is being used inconsistently within the surgical education literature. Our hope is that with establishing criteria for coaching, future studies will implement this intervention more consistently and allow for better comparison and generalization of results.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33856384
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004910
pii: 00000658-202201000-00014
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
80-84Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
AA. G. Personal Best: Top athletes and singers have coaches. Should you? 2011. Available at: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/annals-of-medicine . Accessed February 12, 2019.
Dictionary.com 2011. Available at: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/teach . Accessed February 11, 2019.
Sachdeva AK. Preceptorship, mentorship, and the adult learner in medical and health sciences education. J Cancer Educ 1996; 11:131–136.
Lin J, Reddy R. Teaching, mentorship, and coaching in surgical education. Thorac Surg Clin 2019; 3:311–320.
Reed D, Cook DA, Beckman TJ, et al. Association between funding and quality of published medical education research. JAMA 2007; 2989:1002–1009.
Alken A, Luursema JM, Weenk M, et al. Integrating technical and non-technical skills coaching in an acute trauma surgery team training: Is it too much? Am J Surg 2018; 216:369–374.
Soucisse ML, Boulva K, Sideris L, et al. Video coaching as an efficient teaching method for surgical residents-a randomized controlled trial. J Surg Educ 2017; 74:365–371.
Beasley HL, Ghousseini HN, Wiegmann DA, et al. Strategies for building peer surgical coaching relationships. JAMA Surg 2017; 152:e165540.
Greenberg CC, Ghousseini HN, Pavuluri Quamme SR, et al. Surgical coaching for individual performance improvement. Ann Surg 2015; 261:32–34.
Mutabdzic D, Mylopoulos M, Fau - Murnaghan ML, et al. Coaching surgeons: is culture limiting our ability to improve? Ann Surg 2015; 262:213–216.
Rindos NB, Wroble-Biglan M, Ecker A, et al. Impact of video coaching on gynecologic resident laparoscopic suturing: a randomized controlled trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017; 24:426–431.
Bonrath EM, Dedy NJ, Gordon LE, et al. Comprehensive surgical coaching enhances surgical skill in the operating room: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2015; 262:205–212.
Greenberg CC, Ghousseini HN, Pavuluri Quamme SR, et al. A statewide surgical coaching program provides opportunity for continuous professional development. Ann Surg 2018; 267:868–873.
Yule S, Parker SH, Wilkinson J, et al. Coaching non-technical skills improves surgical residents’ performance in a simulated operating room. J Surg Educ 2015; 72:1124–1130.
Stefanidis D, Anderson-Montoya B, Higgins RV, et al. Developing a coaching mechanism for practicing surgeons. Surgery 2016; 160:536–545.
Leung Y, Salfinger S, Fau - Tan JJ-S, et al. The introduction and the validation of a surgical encounter template to facilitate surgical coaching of gynaecologists at a metropolitan tertiary obstetrics and gynaecology hospital. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2013; 53:477–483.
Sargeant J, Lockyer Jm Fau - Mann K, Mann K, et al. The R2C2 model in residency education: how does it foster coaching and promote feedback use? Acad Med 2018; 93:1055–1063.
Chand M, Qureshi T. Evolution in surgical training: what can we learn from professional coaches and elite athletes? J R Soc Med 2014; 107:290–292.
Zahid A, Hong J, Young CJ. Coaching experts: applications to surgeons and continuing professional development. Surg Innov 2018; 25:77–80.
Ahmed F, Sheriff IHN, Al-Alusi M, et al. Integrating coaches into the national training programme: a modern approach to surgical supervision. Int J Surg 2018; 50:65–66.
Alfa-Wali M. Surgical leadership through coaching. J Surg Educ 2013; 70:680–682.
Byrnes ME, Engler TA, Greenberg CC, et al. Coaching as a mechanism to challenge surgical professional identities. Ann Surg 2019; Dec 2. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003707. Epub ahead of print.
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003707.
Pradarelli JC, Delisle M, Briggs A, et al. Identifying naturalistic coaching behavior among practicing surgeons in the operating room. Ann Surg 2019; 273:181–186.
Gregory PJ, Ring D, Rubash H, et al. Use of 360 degrees feedback to develop physician leaders in orthopaedic surgery. J Surg Orthop Adv 2018; 27:85–91.
Shubeck SP, Kanters AE, Dimick JB. Technical content of coaching conversations: what do surgeons discuss? Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 2018; 32: (1 Supplement 1): S6.
Kanters AE, Shubeck SP, Sandhu G, et al. Justifying our decisions about surgical technique: Evidence from coaching conversations. Surgery 2018; 164:561–565.
Greenberg JA, Jolles S, Sullivan S, et al. A structured, extended training program to facilitate adoption of new techniques for practicing surgeons. Surg Endosc 2018; 32:217–224.
Kruser JM, Taylor LJ, Campbell TC, et al. “Best case/worst case”: training surgeons to use a novel communication tool for high-risk acute surgical problems. J Pain Symptom Manage 2017; 53:711–719.
Stefanidis DA-O, Chintalapudi N, Anderson-Montoya B, et al. How often do surgeons obtain the critical view of safety during laparoscopic cholecystectomy? Surg Endosc 2017; 31:142–146.
Mazer LM, Hu YY, Arriaga AF, et al. Evaluating surgical coaching: a mixed methods approach reveals more than surveys alone. J Surg Educ 2018; 75:1520–1525.
Morgan L, Hadi M, Pickering S, et al. The effect of teamwork training on team performance and clinical outcome in elective orthopaedic surgery: a controlled interrupted time series study. BMJ Open 2015; 5:e006216.
Kleiner C, Link T, Maynard MT, et al. Coaching to improve the quality of communication during briefings and debriefings. AORN J 2014; 100:358–368.
Hu YY, Peyre SE, Arriaga AF, et al. Postgame analysis: using video-based coaching for continuous professional development. J Am Coll Surg 2012; 214:115–124.
Bull NB, Silverman CD, Bonrath EM. Targeted surgical coaching can improve operative self-assessment ability: a single-blinded nonrandomized trial. Surgery 2020; 167:308–313.
Tanaka R, DeAsis F, Vigneswaran Y, et al. Video review program enhances resident training in laparoscopic inguinal hernia: a randomized blinded controlled trial. Surg Endosc 2018; 32:2847–2851.
Van’t Hullenaar CDP, Mertens AC, Ruurda JP, et al. Validation of ergonomic instructions in robot-assisted surgery simulator training. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech 2018; 32:2533–2540.
Alken A, Tan E, Luursema JM, et al. Feedback activities of instructors during a trauma surgery course. Am J Surg 2013; 206:599–604.
Alken A, Tan E, Luursema JM, et al. Coaching during a trauma surgery team training: perceptions versus structured observations. Am J Surg 2015; 209:163–169.
Cerfolio RJ, Cichos KH, Wei B, et al. Robotic lobectomy can be taught while maintaining quality patient outcomes. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016; 152:991–997.
Palter VN, Beyfuss KA, Jokhio AR, et al. Peer coaching to teach faculty surgeons an advanced laparoscopic skill: a randomized controlled trial. Surgery 2016; 160:1392–1399.
Karam MD, Thomas GW, Koehler DM, et al. Surgical coaching from head-mounted video in the training of fluoroscopically guided articular fracture surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97:1031–1039.
Briet JM, Mourits MJ, Kenkhuis MJ, et al. Implementing an advanced laparoscopic procedure by monitoring with a visiting surgeon. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2010; 17:771–778.
Hu YY, Mazer LM, Yule SJ, et al. Complementing operating room teaching with video-based coaching. JAMA SurgV 152 2017; 318–325.
Liao CH, Ooyang CH, Chen CC, et al. Video coaching improving contemporary technical and nontechnical ability in laparoscopic education. J Surg Educ 2020; 77:652–660.
Greenberg J. Surgical coaching for performance improvement. Hernia 2016; 20: (1 SUPPL. 1): S21–S22.
Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health 2011; 38:65–76.