Advertisement

World Journal of Surgery

, 35:1214 | Cite as

Defining Decision Making: A Qualitative Study of International Experts’ Views on Surgical Trainee Decision Making

  • Sarah C. RennieEmail author
  • Andre M. van Rij
  • Chrystal Jaye
  • Katherine H. Hall
Article

Abstract

Background

Decision making is a key competency of surgeons; however, how best to assess decisions and decision makers is not clearly established. The aim of the present study was to identify criteria that inform judgments about surgical trainees’ decision-making skills.

Methods

A qualitative free text web-based survey was distributed to recognized international experts in Surgery, Medical Education, and Cognitive Research. Half the participants were asked to identify features of good decisions, characteristics of good decision makers, and essential factors for developing good decision-making skills. The other half were asked to consider these areas in relation to poor decision making. Template analysis of free text responses was performed.

Results

Twenty-nine (52%) experts responded to the survey, identifying 13 categories for judging a decision and 14 for judging a decision maker. Twelve features/characteristics overlapped (considered, informed, well timed, aware of limitations, communicated, knowledgeable, collaborative, patient-focused, flexible, able to act on the decision, evidence-based, and coherent). Fifteen categories were generated for essential factors leading to development of decision-making skills that fall into three major themes (personal qualities, training, and culture). The categories compiled from the perspectives of good/poor were predominantly the inverse of each other; however, the weighting given to some categories varied.

Conclusions

This study provides criteria described by experts when considering surgical decisions, decision makers, and development of decision-making skills. It proposes a working definition of a good decision maker. Understanding these criteria will enable clinical teachers to better recognize and encourage good decision-making skills and identify poor decision-making skills for remediation.

Keywords

Decision Maker Good Decision Personal Quality Poor Decision Free Text Response 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Research Professor Peter Herbison, MSc (Otago), biostatistician, for advice regarding statistics and undertaking some of the statistical analysis. Also thanks are due to all the international experts who gave their time to complete the survey. The study was designed by Sarah C. Rennie with the guidance of Andre M. van Rij. Sarah C. Rennie delivered the study and collected the data, and, with Katherine H. Hall, undertook the data analysis. All authors were involved in the interpretation of the data. Sarah C. Rennie wrote the first draft of the paper; all authors contributed to the various drafts and approved the final version for submission. Andre M. van Rij is the guarantor.

References

  1. 1.
    Surgical Competence Performance Working Party (2008) Surgical competence and performance. Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Melbourne, pp 1–36Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dickinson I, Watters D, Graham I et al (2009) Guide to the assessment of competence and performance in practising surgeons. ANZ J Surg 79:198–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yule S, Flin R, Paterson-Brown S et al (2006) Development of a rating system for surgeons’ non-technical skills. Med Educ 40:1098–1104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yule S, Flin R, Maran N et al (2008) Surgeons’ non-technical skills in the operating room: reliability testing of the NOTSS behavior rating system. World J Surg 32:548–556PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Flin R, Yule S, Paterson-Brown S et al (2007) Teaching surgeons about non-technical skills. Surgeon 5:86–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hall J, Ellis C, Hamdorf J (2003) Surgeons and cognitive processes. Br J Surg 90:10–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Flin R, Youngson G, Yule S (2007) How do surgeons make intraoperative decisions? Qual Saf Health Care 16:235–239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rutkow IM (1982) Surgical decision making: the reproducibility of clinical judgment. Arch Surg 117:337–340PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    MacCormick AD, Parry BR (2006) Judgement analysis of surgeons’ prioritization of patients for elective general surgery. Med Decis Making 26:255–264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rutkow IM, Gittelsohn AM, Zuidema GD (1979) Surgical decision making. The reliability of clinical judgement. Ann Surg 190:409–417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jacklin R, Sevdalis N, Harries C et al (2008) Judgment analysis: a method for quantitative evaluation of trainee surgeons’ judgments of surgical risk. Am J Surg 195:183–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sarker S, Rehman S, Ladwa M et al (2008) A decision-making learning and assessment tool in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 23:197–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sarker SK, Chang A, Vincent C (2008) Decision making in laparoscopic surgery: a prospective, independent and blinded analysis. Int J Surg 6:98–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jacklin R, Sevdalis N, Darzi A et al (2008) Mapping surgical practice decision making: an interview study to evaluate decisions in surgical care. Am J Surg 195:689–696PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dietz T (2003) What is a good decision? Criteria for environmental decision making. Hum Ecol Rev 10:33–39Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ratliff A, Angell M, Dow RW et al (1999) What is a good decision? Eff Clin Pract 2:185–197PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    King N (2004) Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In: Cassell C, Symon G (eds) Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research. Sage, London, pp 256–270Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Neuendorf KA (2002) The content analysis guidebook. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    King N (2007) Template analysis: quality checks. Last updated: Friday, April 27, 2007. Available from: http://www.hud.ac.uk/hhs/research/template_analysis/technique/qualityreflexivity.htm. Accessed 27 March 2011
  20. 20.
    Flin R et al (2006) The non-technical skills for surgeons (NOTSS). In: Aberdeen UO (ed) System handbook, vol 1.2. University of Aberdeen, AberdeenGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    American Psychiatric Association Task Force on DSM-IV (2000) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR, 4th edn. American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC, p 686Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bann S, Darzi A (2005) Selection of individuals for training in surgery. Am J Surg 190:98–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Foushee HC (1984) Dyads and triads at 35,000 feet: factors affecting group process and aircrew performance. Am Psychol 39:885–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hamilton MB (2009) Online survey response rates and times. Available at http://www.supersurvey.com. Accessed 27 March 2011
  25. 25.
    Kaplowitz MD, Hadlock TD, Levine R (2004) A comparison of web and mail survey response rates. Public Opin Q 68:94–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah C. Rennie
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andre M. van Rij
    • 1
  • Chrystal Jaye
    • 2
  • Katherine H. Hall
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgical Sciences, Dunedin School of MedicineUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of General Practice and Rural Health, Dunedin School of MedicineUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations