Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Examining the impact of surgical coaching on trainee physiologic response and basic skill acquisition

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

We examined how problem-solving coaching impacts trainee skill acquisition and physiologic stress as well as how trainee sensitivity to feedback, known as self-monitoring ability, impacts coaching effectiveness.

Methods

Medical students completed a pre-training demographics questionnaire, a 12-item self-monitoring ability scale (1 = always false, 5 = always true), and baseline FLS Task 5 with physiologic sensors. After watching a laparoscopic suturing instructional video, students practiced the task for 30 min, either with a surgical coach, or alone, depending on condition. The coach logged frequency of coaching behaviors according to a task-specific coaching script. Trainees then completed FLS Task 5 with physiologic sensors, a post-training questionnaire, and a 12-item coaching quality evaluation (1 = poor, 5 = very good).

Results

Twenty-four students (age 24.5 ± 1.4; 54% men; 58% MS4) participated in the study. All were fairly high self-monitors (3.8 ± 0.76). No differences in baseline suturing skills between the groups emerged. Improvement in the coaching group‘s suturing (N = 12; 285.0 ± 79.9) was significantly higher than the control group (N = 12; 200.9 ± 110.3). One measure of physiologic stress (rMSSD) was significantly higher in the coaching group. Trainees who received more coaching demonstrated larger improvements (r = 0.7, p < 0.05). Overall ,perceived quality of the coaching relationship was high (4.4 ± 0.6). There was no correlation between trainee self-monitoring ability and skill improvement.

Conclusions

This work suggests that coaching may increase heart rate variability of trainees, indicating coping well with training. Trainee disposition toward feedback did not play a role in this relationship.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

OR:

Operating room

HR:

Heart rate

HRV:

Heart rate variability

RF:

Respiration frequency

ECG:

Electrocardiogram

References

  1. Parsloe E (1999) The manager as coach and mentor. CIPD Publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cole SJ, Mackenzie H, Ha J, Hanna GB, Miskovic D (2014) Randomized controlled trial on the effect of coaching in simulated laparoscopic training. Surg Endosc 28(3):979–986

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kirkpatrick JS (2012) A comparison C1-C2 transarticular screw placement after self-education and mentored education of orthopaedic residents. J Spinal Disord Tech 25(6):E155–E160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Porte MC, Xeroulis G, Reznick RK, Dubrowski A (2007) Verbal feedback from an expert is more effective than self-accessed feedback about motion efficiency in learning new surgical skills. Am J Surg 193(1):105–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gala R, Orejuela F, Gerten K et al (2013) Effect of validated skills simulation on operating room performance in obstetrics and gynecology residents: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 121(3):578–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hamad GG, Brown MT, Clavijo-Alvarez JA (2007) Postoperative video debriefing reduces technical errors in laparoscopic surgery. Am J Surg 194(1):110–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Grantcharov TP, Schulze S, Kristiansen VB (2007) The impact of objective assessment and constructive feedback on improvement of laparoscopic performance in the operating room. Surg Endosc 21(12):2240–2243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Boyle E, O’Keeffe DA, Naughton PA, Hill AD, McDonnell CO, Moneley D (2011) The importance of expert feedback during endovascular simulator training. J Vasc Surg 54(1):240–248 e241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Trehan A, Barnett-Vanes A, Carty MJ, McCulloch P, Maruthappu M (2015) The impact of feedback of intraoperative technical performance in surgery: a systematic review. BMJ Open 5(6):e006759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Yule S, Parker SH, Wilkinson J et al (2015) Coaching non-technical skills improves surgical residents’ performance in a simulated operating room. J Surg Educ 72(6):1124–1130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Snyder M, Gangestad S (1986) On the nature of self-monitoring: matters of assessment, matters of validity. J Pers Soc Psychol 51(1):125–139

    Google Scholar 

  12. London M, Smither JW (2002) Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance management process. Hum Resour Manag Rev 12(1):81–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Reilly R, Warech M, Reilly S (1993) The influence of self-monitoring on the reliability and validity of upward feedback. Paper presented at: Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco

  14. Hodges NJ, Franks IM (2002) Modelling coaching practice: the role of instruction and demonstration. J Sports Sci 20(10):793–811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Magill RA, Anderson D (2007) Motor learning and control: concepts and applications. vol 11, McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lennox RD, Wolfe RN (1984) Revision of the self-monitoring scale. J Pers Soc Psychol 46(6):1349–1364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Available at: http://www.flsprogram.org. Accessed 23 Jan 2016

  18. Korndorffer JR, Dunne JB, Sierra R, Stefanidis D, Touchard CL, Scott DJ (2005) Simulator training for laparoscopic suturing using performance goals translates to the operating room. J Am Coll Surg 201(1):23–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Heslin PA, VandeWalle D (2008) Managers’ implicit assumptions about personnel. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 17(3):219–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gregory JB, Levy PE (2010) Employee coaching relationships: enhancing construct clarity and measurement. Coaching 3(2):109–123

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bonrath EM, Dedy NJ, Gordon LE, Grantcharov TP (2015) Comprehensive surgical coaching enhances surgical skill in the operating room: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 262(2):205–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Singh P, Aggarwal R, Tahir M, Pucher PH, Darzi A (2015) A randomized controlled study to evaluate the role of video-based coaching in training laparoscopic skills. Ann Surg 261(5):862–869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hu Y-Y, Mazer LM, Yule SJ (2016) et al. Complementing operating room teaching with video-based coaching. JAMA Surg. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4619

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fitts PM, Posner MI (1967) Human performance. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Pacific Grove

    Google Scholar 

  25. O’Connor A, Schwaitzberg S, Cao C (2008) How much feedback is necessary for learning to suture? Surg Endosc 22(7):1614–1619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Francis DO, Eavey RD, Wright HV, Sinard RJ (2016) Incorporating postoperative debriefing into surgical education. J Surg Educ 73(3):448–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Soucisse ML, Boulva K, Sideris L, Drolet P, Morin M, Dubé P (2016) Video coaching as an efficient teaching method for surgical residents—a randomized controlled trial. J Surg Educ 74(2):365–371

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hmelo-Silver CE, Duncan RG, Chinn CA (2006) Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark. Educ Psychol 42(2):99–107

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kirschner PA, Sweller J, Clark RE (2006) Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educ Psychol 41(2):75–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Reeve J, Tseng C-M (2011) Cortisol reactivity to a teacher’s motivating style: the biology of being controlled versus supporting autonomy. Motiv Emot 35(1):63–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hooyman A, Wulf G, Lewthwaite R (2014) Impacts of autonomy-supportive versus controlling instructional language on motor learning. Hum Mov Sci 36:190–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Wulf G, McNevin N, Shea CH (2001) The automaticity of complex motor skill learning as a function of attentional focus. Quart J Exp Psychol 54(4):1143–1154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zachry T, Wulf G, Mercer J, Bezodis N (2005) Increased movement accuracy and reduced EMG activity as the result of adopting an external focus of attention. Brain Res Bull 67(4):304–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kal E, Van der Kamp J, Houdijk H (2013) External attentional focus enhances movement automatization: a comprehensive test of the constrained action hypothesis. Hum Mov Sci 32(4):527–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Wulf G, Shea C, Lewthwaite R (2010) Motor skill learning and performance: a review of influential factors. Med Educ 44(1):75–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Stein PK, Bosner MS, Kleiger RE, Conger BM (1994) Heart rate variability: a measure of cardiac autonomic tone. Am Heart J 127(5):1376–1381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Cardiology TFotESo (1996) Heart rate variability standards of measurement, physiological interpretation, and clinical use. Eur Heart J 17:354–381

    Google Scholar 

  38. Salahuddin L, Cho J, Jeong MG, Kim D (2007) Ultra short term analysis of heart rate variability for monitoring mental stress in mobile settings. Paper presented at: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2007. EMBS 2007. 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE

  39. Gharbi A, Hey S, Jatoba L et al. (2008) System for body and mind monitoring in coaching process. Paper presented at: Medical Devices and Biosensors, 2008. ISSS-MDBS 2008. 5th International Summer School and Symposium on 2008

  40. Schaaff K, Adam MT (2013) Measuring emotional arousal for online applications: evaluation of ultra-short term heart rate variability measures. Paper presented at: Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII), Humaine Association Conference on 2013

  41. Mayya S, Jilla V, Tiwari VN, Nayak MM, Narayanan R (2015) Continuous monitoring of stress on smartphone using heart rate variability. Paper presented at: Bioinformatics and Bioengineering (BIBE), IEEE 15th International Conference on 2015

  42. Stanley J, D’Auria S, Buchheit M (2015) Cardiac parasympathetic activity and race performance: an elite triathlete case study. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 10(4):528–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Buchheit M, Chivot A, Parouty J et al (2010) Monitoring endurance running performance using cardiac parasympathetic function. Eur J Appl Physiol 108(6):1153–1167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Yerkes RM, Dodson JD (1908) The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. J Comp Neurol Psychol 18(5):459–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Leung Y, Salfinger S, Tan JJS, Frazer A (2013) 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 NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 53(5):477–483

    Google Scholar 

  46. Connolly A, Hansen D, Schuler K, Galvin SL, Wolfe H (2014) Immediate surgical skills feedback in the operating room using “SurF” cards. J Grad Med Educ 6(4):774–778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Min H, Morales DR, Orgill D, Smink DS, Yule S (2015) Systematic review of coaching to enhance surgeons’ operative performance. Surgery 158(5):1168–1191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Shebilskem WL, Regian JW, Arthur W, Jordan JA (1992) A dyadic protocol for training complex skills. Hum Factors 34(3):369–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Shea CH, Wright DL, Wulf G, Whitacre C (2000) Physical and observational practice afford unique learning opportunities. J Mot Behav 32(1):27–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Sutkin G, Littleton EB, Kanter SL (2015) How surgical mentors teach: a classification of in vivo teaching behaviors part 1: verbal teaching guidance. J Surg Educ 72(2):243–250

    Google Scholar 

  51. Timberlake MD, Mayo HG, Scott L, Weis J, Gardner AK (2017) What do we know about intraoperative teaching?: a systematic review. Ann Surg 266:251–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Gardner AK, Timberlake MD, Dunkin BD (2017) Faculty development for the operating room: Examining the impact of an intraoperative teaching course for surgeons. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Ibrahim I. Jabbour, MD for serving as the coach in this study.

Funding

The study was funded through a departmental educational research grant from the University of Texas Southwestern Department of Surgery to A.K.G.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA

    Matthew D. Timberlake

  2. Department of Surgery, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Dimitrios Stefanidis

  3. Department of Surgery, School of Allied Health Sciences, Baylor College of Medicine, MS: BCM115, DeBakey Building, M108K, One Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Aimee K. Gardner

Authors
  1. Matthew D. Timberlake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dimitrios Stefanidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aimee K. Gardner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aimee K. Gardner.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Dr. Gardner has ownership interest in SurgWise Consulting, LLC. Dr. Timberlake, and Dr. Stefanidis has no relevant conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Appendix

Appendix

Coaching quality evaluation

  1. 1.

    My skills coach and I had mutual respect for one another.

  2. 2.

    I believe my skills coach was committed to my training experience.

  3. 3.

    My coach enabled me to develop my lap suturing skills.

  4. 4.

    I felt able to discuss my concerns or troubles with my skills coach.

  5. 5.

    My coach was a good listener.

  6. 6.

    My coach helped me identify and build upon my strengths.

  7. 7.

    My coach was effective at communicating with me.

  8. 8.

    I felt at ease talking to my coach about my suturing performance.

  9. 9.

    I felt safe being open and honest with my skills coach.

  10. 10.

    I believe that my skills coach truly cared about my performance.

  11. 11.

    My coach was easy to talk with.

  12. 12.

    My coach engaged in effective techniques to help me unlock my lap suturing potential.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Timberlake, M.D., Stefanidis, D. & Gardner, A.K. Examining the impact of surgical coaching on trainee physiologic response and basic skill acquisition. Surg Endosc 32, 4183–4190 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6163-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6163-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation