Dataset Information

A questionnaire elicitation of surgeons' belief about learning within a surgical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Surgeons gain expertise as they repeatedly conduct a procedure. Such learning is widely acknowledged to pose a challenge to evaluating new surgical procedures. Most surgical trials report little if any information on learning. We elicited surgeons' belief regarding learning within the context of a randomised trial which assessed two surgical procedures.

Materials and methods

Surgeons participating in the UKUFF trial were sent a postal questionnaire requesting details on current practice, prior experience and their belief regarding acquiring proficiency and the learning curve of operation time for two surgical procedures (open and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair).

Results

In total 52 (58%) participating surgeons returned a completed questionnaire. The median (IQR) number of procedures required to acquire proficiency were 17 (10,23) and 35 (23,50) for the open and arthroscopic repairs respectively. The distribution of surgeons' belief regarding the initial point had median (IQR) of 109 (69,128) and 145 (97,171) minutes for open and arthroscopic repair respectively. Corresponding values for the plateau point were 60 (46, 82) and 79 (58, 110).

Conclusions

We have shown that information on the current practice, prior experience and beliefs on the learning process of a surgical procedure can be elicited using a short questionnaire. The approach could aid the interpretation of trial results in terms of generalisability and be used a priori in the design of a trial.

SUBMITTER: Cook JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3493499 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A questionnaire elicitation of surgeons' belief about learning within a surgical trial.

Cook Jonathan A JA Ramsay Craig R CR Carr Andrew J AJ Rees Jonathan L JL

PloS one 20121108 11

<h4>Introduction</h4>Surgeons gain expertise as they repeatedly conduct a procedure. Such learning is widely acknowledged to pose a challenge to evaluating new surgical procedures. Most surgical trials report little if any information on learning. We elicited surgeons' belief regarding learning within the context of a randomised trial which assessed two surgical procedures.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Surgeons participating in the UKUFF trial were sent a postal questionnaire requesting details ...[more]

PMID: 23145113

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Outcomes of surgical trials hinge on surgeon selection and their underlying expertise. Assessment of expertise is paramount. We investigated whether surgeons' performance measured by the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) assessment program could predict their performance in a surgical trial. METHODS:As part of a prospective multi-institutional study of minimally invasive inguinal lymphadenectomy (MILND) for melanoma, surgical oncologists with no prior MILND experience underwent pre-trial FLS assessment. Surgeons completed MILND training, began enrolling patients, and submitted videos of each MILND case performed. Videos were scored with the global operative assessment of laparoscopic skills (GOALS) tool. Associations between baseline FLS scores and participant's trial performance metrics were assessed. RESULTS:Twelve surgeons enrolled patients; their median total baseline FLS score was 332 (range 275-380, max possible 500, passing >270). Participants enrolled 87 patients in the study (median 6 per surgeon, range 1-24), of which 72 (83%) videos were adequate for scoring. Baseline GOALS score was 17.1 (range 9.6-21.2, max possible score 30). Inter-rater reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.85). FLS scores correlated with improved GOALS scores (r = 0.57, p = 0.05) and with decreased operative time (r = -0.6, p = 0.02). No associations were found with the degree of patient recruitment (r = 0.02, p = 0.7), lymph node count (r = 0.01, p = 0.07), conversion rate (r = -0.06, p = 0.38) or major complications(r = -0.14, p = 0.6). CONCLUSIONS:FLS skill assessment of surgeons prior to their enrollment in a surgical trial is feasible. Although better FLS scores predicted improved operative performance and operative time, other trial outcome measures showed no difference. Our findings have implications for the documentation of laparoscopic expertise of surgeons in practice and may allow more appropriate selection of surgeons to participate in clinical trials.

Project description:ImportanceSurgical coaching is maturing as a tangible strategy for surgeons' continuing professional development. Resources to spread this innovation are not yet widely available.ObjectiveTo identify surgeon-derived implementation recommendations for surgical coaching programs from participants' exit interviews and ratings of their coaching interactions.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative analysis of the Surgical Coaching for Operative Performance Enhancement (SCOPE) program, a quality improvement intervention, was conducted at 4 US academic medical centers. Participants included 46 practicing surgeons. The SCOPE program ran from December 7, 2018, to October 31, 2019. Data were analyzed from November 1, 2019, to January 31, 2020.InterventionsSurgeons were assigned as either a coach or a coachee, and each coach was paired with 1 coachee by a local champion who knew the surgeons professionally. Coaching pairs underwent training and were instructed to complete 3 coaching sessions-consisting of preoperative goal setting, intraoperative observation, and postoperative debriefing-focused on intraoperative performance.Main outcomes and measuresThemes from the participants' exit interviews covering 3 major domains: (1) describing the experience, (2) coach-coachee relationship, and (3) facilitators and barriers to implementing surgical coaching. Surgeons' responses were stratified by the net promoter score (NPS), a scale ranging from 0 to 10 points, indicating how likely they were to recommend their coaching session to others, with 9 to 10 indicating promoters; 7 to 8, passives; and 0 to 6, detractors.ResultsAmong the 46 participants (36 men [78.3%]), 23 were interviewed (50.0%); thematic saturation was reached with 5 coach-coachee pairs (10 interviews). Overall, coaches and coachees agreed on key implementation recommendations for surgical coaching, including how to optimize coach-coachee relationships and facilitate productive coaching sessions. The NPS categories were associated with how participants experienced their own coaching sessions. Specifically, participants who reported excellent first sessions, had a coaching partner in the same clinical specialty, and were transparent about each other's intentions in the program tended to be promoters. Participants who described suboptimal first sessions, less clinical overlap, and unclear goals with their partner were more likely detractors.Conclusions and relevanceThese exit interviews with practicing surgeons offer critical insights for addressing cultural barriers and practical challenges for successful implementation of peer coaching programs focused on surgical performance improvement. With empirical evidence on optimizing coach-coachee relationships and facilitating participants' experience, organizations can establish effective coaching programs that enable meaningful continuous professional development for surgeons and ultimately enhance patient care.

Dataset Information

A questionnaire elicitation of surgeons' belief about learning within a surgical trial.

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A questionnaire elicitation of surgeons' belief about learning within a surgical trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets