Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying optimal program structure, motivations for and barriers to peer coaching participation for surgeons in practice: a qualitative synthesis

  • 2020 SAGES Oral
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Continuous advancement of surgical skills is of utmost importance to surgeons in practice, but traditional learning activities without personalized feedback often do not translate into practice changes in the operating room. Peer coaching has been shown to lead to very high rates of practice changes and utilization of new skills. The purpose of this study was to explore the opinions of practicing surgeons regarding the characteristics of peer coaching programs, in order to better inform future peer coaching program design.

Methods

Using a convenience sample, practicing general surgeons were invited to participate in focus group interviews. Allocation into groups was according to years in practice. The interviews were conducted using open-ended questions by trained facilitators. Audio recordings were transcribed and coded into themes by two independent reviewers using a grounded theory approach.

Results

Of 52 invitations, 27 surgeons participated: 74% male; years in practice: < 5 years: 33%; 5–15 years: 26%; > 15 years: 41%. Three main themes emerged during coding: ideal program structure, motivations for participation, and barriers to implementation. For the ideal structure of a peer coaching program all groups agreed coaching programs should be voluntary, involve bidirectional learning, and provide CME credits. Live, in situ coaching was preferred. Motivations for coaching participation included: desire to learn new techniques (48%), remaining up to date with the evolution of surgical practice (30%) and improvement of patient outcomes (18%). Barriers to program implementation were categorized as: surgical culture (42%), perceived lack of need (26%), logistical constraints (23%) and issues of coach–coachee dynamics (9%).

Conclusion

Peer coaching to refine or acquire new skills addresses many shortcomings of traditional, didactic learning modalities. This study revealed key aspects of optimal program structure, motivations and barriers to coaching which can be used to inform the design of successful peer coaching programs in the future.

Graphic abstract

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Selden NR (2017) Mentorship: service, education, progress. The 2015 CNS Presidential Address. J Neurosurg 126:158–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Barsuk JH, Wayne DB (2014) A critical review of simulation-based mastery learning with translational outcomes. Med Educ 48:375–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. McGaghie WC (2015) Mastery learning: it is time for medical education to join the 21st century. Acad Med 90:1438–1441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Anders Ericsson K (2008) Deliberate practice and acquisition of expert performance: a general overview. Acad Emerg Med 15:988–994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Palter VN, Grantcharov TP (2014) Individualized deliberate practice on a virtual reality simulator improves technical performance of surgical novices in the operating room: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 259:443–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hashimoto DA, Sirimanna P, Gomez ED, Beyer-Berjot L, Ericsson KA, Williams NN, Darzi A, Aggarwal R (2015) Deliberate practice enhances quality of laparoscopic surgical performance in a randomized controlled trial: from arrested development to expert performance. Surg Endosc 29:3154–3162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gawande A (2011) Personal best. The New Yorker

  8. Benassi P, Macgillivray L, Silver I, Sockalingam S (2017) The role of morbidity and mortality rounds in medical education: a scoping review. Med Educ Rev 51:469–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mort E, Bruckel J, Donelan K, Paine L, Rosen M, Thompson D, Weaver S, Yagoda D, Pronovost P, P-t-PS T (2017) Improving health care quality and patient safety through peer-to-peer assessment: demonstration project in two academic medical centers. Am J Med Qual 32:472–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Howell A-M, Panesar SS, Burns EM, Donaldson LJ, Darzi A (2014) Reducing the burden of surgical harm: a systematic review of the interventions used to reduce adverse events in surgery. Ann Surg 259:630–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Haynes AB, Edmondson L, Lipsitz SR, Molina G, Neville BA, Singer SJ, Moonan AT, Childers AK, Foster R, Gibbons LR (2017) Mortality trends after a voluntary checklist-based surgical safety collaborative. Ann Surg 266:923–929

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Treadwell JR, Lucas S, Tsou AY (2014) Surgical checklists: a systematic review of impacts and implementation. BMJ Qual Saf 23:299–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Valanci-Aroesty S, Alhassan N, Feldman LS, Landry T, Mastropietro V, Fiore J Jr, Lee L, Fried GM, Mueller CL (2020) Implementation and effectiveness of coaching for surgeons in practice–a mixed studies systematic review. J Surg Educ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2020.01.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Davis DA, Thomson MA, Oxman AD, Haynes RB (1995) Changing physician performance: a systematic review of the effect of continuing medical education strategies. JAMA 274:700–705

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. McLeod P, McLeod A (2004) Personal view if formal CME is ineffective, why do physicians still participate? Med Teach 26:184–186

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Greenberg CC, Klingensmith ME (2015) The continuum of coaching: opportunities for surgical improvement at all levels. Ann Surg 262:217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Stone AB, Yuan CT, Rosen MA, Grant MC, Benishek LE, Hanahan E, Lubomski LH, Ko C, Wick EC (2018) Barriers to and facilitators of implementing enhanced recovery pathways using an implementation framework: a systematic review. JAMA Surg 153:270–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Krueger RA (2014) Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  19. Green J, Thorogood N (2018) Qualitative methods for health research. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  20. Chapman A, Hadfield M, Chapman C (2015) Qualitative research in healthcare: an introduction to grounded theory using thematic analysis. J R Coll Phys Edinb 45:201–205

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Phua V (2004) Convenience sample. In: Lewis-Beck MS, Bryman A, Liao TF (eds) The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 197–198

    Google Scholar 

  22. Farnsworth J, Boon B (2010) Analysing group dynamics within the focus group. Qual Res 10:605–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mutabdzic D, Mylopoulos M, Murnaghan ML, Patel P, Zilbert N, Seemann N, Regehr G, Moulton C-A (2015) Coaching surgeons: is culture limiting our ability to improve? Ann Surg 262:213–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Willig C (2013) Grounded theory methodology. Introducing qualitative research in psychology, 3rd edn. Open University Press, Buckingham

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Greenberg CC, Ghousseini HN, Quamme SRP, Beasley HL, Wiegmann DA (2015) Surgical coaching for individual performance improvement. Ann Surg 261:32–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Shubeck SP, Kanters AE, Sandhu G, Greenberg CC, Dimick JB (2018) Dynamics within peer-to-peer surgical coaching relationships: early evidence from the Michigan Bariatric Surgical Collaborative. Surgery 164:185–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Grant AM, Passmore J, Cavanagh MJ, Parker HM (2010) The state of play in coaching today: a comprehensive review of the field

  29. Davis D, O'Brien MAT, Freemantle N, Wolf FM, Mazmanian P, Taylor-Vaisey A (1999) Impact of formal continuing medical education: do conferences, workshops, rounds, and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behavior or health care outcomes? JAMA 282:867–874

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Davis DA, Mazmanian PE, Fordis M, Van Harrison R, Thorpe KE, Perrier L (2006) Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: a systematic review. JAMA 296:1094–1102

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Lin J, Reddy RM (2019) Teaching, mentorship, and coaching in surgical education. Thorac Surg Clin 29:311–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Dath D, Regehr G, Birch D, Schlachta C, Poulin E, Mamazza J, Reznick R, MacRae H (2004) Toward reliable operative assessment: the reliability and feasibility of videotaped assessment of laparoscopic technical skills. Surg Endosc 18:1800–1804

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Beasley HL, Ghousseini HN, Wiegmann DA, Brys NA, Quamme SRP, Greenberg CC (2017) Strategies for building peer surgical coaching relationships. JAMA Surg 152:e165540–e165540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Theeboom T, Beersma B, van Vianen AE (2014) Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context. J Posit Psychol 9:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Schwellnus H, Carnahan H (2014) Peer-coaching with health care professionals: what is the current status of the literature and what are the key components necessary in peer-coaching? A scoping review. Med Teach 36:38–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. The Academy of Surgical Coaching (2020) The Academy Of Surgical Coaching. [online] Available at: Accessed February 2020

  37. Walle KAV, Quamme SRP, Beasley HL, Leverson GE, Ghousseini HN, Dombrowski JC, Fry BT, Dimick JB, Wiegmann DA, Greenberg CC (2020) Development and Assessment of the Wisconsin Surgical Coaching Rubric. JAMA Surg 155:486–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hu Y-Y, Peyre SE, Arriaga AF, Osteen RT, Corso KA, Weiser TG, Swanson RS, Ashley SW, Raut CP, Zinner MJ (2012) Postgame analysis: using video-based coaching for continuous professional development. J Am Coll Surg 214:115–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Schermuly CC, Graßmann C (2019) A literature review on negative effects of coaching–what we know and what we need to know. Coaching: Int J Theory Res Pract 12:39–66

    Google Scholar 

  40. Madani A, Vassiliou MC, Watanabe Y, Al-Halabi B, Al-Rowais MS, Deckelbaum DL, Fried GM, Feldman LS (2017) What are the principles that guide behaviors in the operating room? Ann Surg 265:255–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Baron L, Morin L (2009) The coach-coachee relationship in executive coaching: a field study. Hum Resour Dev Q 20:85–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Stewart LJ, Palmer S, Wilkin H, Kerrin M (2008) Towards a model of coaching transfer: operationalising coaching success and the facilitators and barriers to transfer. Int Coach Psychol Rev 3:87–109

    Google Scholar 

  43. Hollis V, Openshaw S, Goble R (2002) Conducting focus groups: purpose and practicalities. Br J Occup Therapy 65:2–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Dr. Mary Ellen MacDonald for providing training to the volunteer facilitators. We also wish to thank the volunteer facilitators for their time and effort: Ms. Roshni Alam, Dr. Elif Bilgic, Mr. Olivier Del Corpo, Dr. Teodora Dumitra, Mr. Charbel El-Kefraoui, Dr. Ana Figueiredo, Ms. Olivia Ganescu, Dr. Caryne Lesard, Mr. Julien Renaud, Dr. Bernardo Verdolin.

Funding

This work is supported by a Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada Medical Education Research Grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Steinberg-Bernstein Centre for Minimally Invasive Surgery & Innovation, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

    Sofia Valanci-Aroesty, Kimberly Wong, Liane S. Feldman, Julio F. Fiore Jr., Lawrence Lee, Gerald M. Fried & Carmen L. Mueller

  2. Department of Surgery, McGill University, 1650 Cedar Avenue, Montreal, QC, H3G 1A4, Canada

    Sofia Valanci-Aroesty, Kimberly Wong, Liane S. Feldman, Julio F. Fiore Jr., Lawrence Lee, Gerald M. Fried & Carmen L. Mueller

Authors
  1. Sofia Valanci-Aroesty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kimberly Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Liane S. Feldman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Julio F. Fiore Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lawrence Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gerald M. Fried
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Carmen L. Mueller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carmen L. Mueller.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Sofia Valanci-Aroesty MD, Kimberly Wong, Liane S Feldman MD, Julio F Fiore Jr PhD, Lawrence Lee MD, Gerald M Fried MD and Carmen L Mueller MD MEd have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Valanci-Aroesty, S., Wong, K., Feldman, L.S. et al. Identifying optimal program structure, motivations for and barriers to peer coaching participation for surgeons in practice: a qualitative synthesis. Surg Endosc 35, 4738–4749 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07968-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07968-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation