Dissecting the surgeon's personality: cross-cultural comparisons in Western Europe.

AIM: The surgeon's personality contributes to variation in surgical decision-making. Previous work on surgeon personality has largely been reserved to Anglo-Saxon studies, with limited international comparisons. In this work we built upon recent work on gastrointestinal surgeon personality and aimed to detect international variations. METHOD: Gastrointestinal surgeons from the UK and the Netherlands were invited to participate in validated personality assessments (44-item, 60-item Big Five Inventory; BFI). These encompass personality using five domains (open-mindedness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and negative emotionality) with three subtraits each. Mean differences in domain factors were calculated between surgeon and nonsurgeon populations from normative data using independent-samples t-tests, adjusted for multiple testing. The items from the 44-item and 60-item BFI were compared between UK and Dutch surgeons and classified accordingly: identical (n = 16), analogous (n = 3), comparable (n = 12). RESULTS: UK (n = 78, 61.5% male) and Dutch (n = 280, 65% male) gastrointestinal surgeons had marked differences in the domains of open-mindedness, extraversion and agreeableness compared with national normative datasets. Moreover, although surgeons had similar levels of emotional stability, country of work influenced differences in specific BFI items. For example, Netherlands-based surgeons scored highly on questions related to sociability and organization versus UK-based surgeons who scored highly on creative imagination (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In a first cross-cultural setting, we identified country-specific personality differences in gastrointestinal surgeon cohorts across domain and facet levels. Given the variation between Dutch and UK surgeons, understanding country-specific data could be useful in guiding personality research in healthcare. Furthermore, we advocate that future work adopts consensus usage of the five factor model.

Exploring shared surgical decision-making from the patient's perspective: is the personality of the surgeon important?

AIM: The aim was to determine the importance of a colorectal surgeon's personality to patients and its influence on their decision-making. METHODS: We present a two-part mixed methods study using the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP-2) long form. Part 1 was an online survey (25 questions) and Part 2 a face-to-face patient and public involvement exercise. Part 1 included patient demographics, details of surgery, overall patient satisfaction (net promoter score) and patient views on surgeon personality (Gosling 10 Item Personality Index). The thematic analysis of free-text responses generated four themes that were taken forward to Part 2. These themes were used to structure focus group discussions on surgeon-patient interactions. RESULTS: Part 1 yielded 296 responses: 72% women, 75.3% UK-based and 55.1% aged 40-59 years. Inflammatory bowel disease (45.3%) and cancer (40.2%) were the main indications. 84.1% of respondents reported satisfaction with their surgical experience (net promoter score). Four key themes were generated from Part 1 and validated in Part 2: (i) surgeon personality stereotypes (media differed from patients' perspective); (ii) favourable and unfavourable surgical personality traits (openness, conscientiousness, emotional stability preferred over risk-taking and narcissism); (iii) patient-surgeon interaction (mutual respect and rapport valued); (iv) impact of surgeon personality on decision-making (majority unaware of second opinion option; management of postoperative complications). CONCLUSION: Patients believe surgeon personality influences shared decision-making. Low levels of emotional stability and conscientiousness are perceived by patients to increase the likelihood of postoperative adverse events. Further work is required to explore the potential influence of surgeon personality on shared decision-making and postoperative outcomes.

Decision-making for older patients undergoing emergency laparotomy: defining patient and clinician values and priorities.

AIM: There remains limited knowledge on what patients value and prioritize in their decision to undergo emergency laparotomy (ELap) and during their subsequent recovery. The aim of this study was to explore factors in decision-making and to reach a consensus amongst patients on the 10 most important priorities in decision-making in ELap. METHODS: Patients aged over 65 years who had required an ELap decision within the preceding 12 months (regardless of management) were identified and invited to attend a modified Delphi process focus group. RESULTS: A total of 20 participants attended: eight patients, four relatives and eight perioperative specialists. The perioperative specialists group defined 12 important factors for perioperative decision-making. The patient group agreed that only six (50%) of these factors were important: independence, postoperative complications, readmission to hospital, requirement for stoma formation, delirium (including long-term cognition) and presence of an advocate (such as a friend or family member). Open discussion refined multiple themes. Agreement was reached by patients and relatives about 10 factors that they valued as most important in their ELap patient journey: return to independence, realistic expectations, postoperative complications, what to expect postoperatively, readmission to hospital, nutrition, postoperative communication, stoma, follow-up and delirium. CONCLUSION: Patients and clinicians have different values and priorities when discussing the risks and implications of undergoing ELap. Patients value quality of life outcomes, in particular, the formation of a stoma, returning to their own home and remaining independent. This work is the first to combine both perspectives to guide future ELap research outcomes.

The colorectal surgeon's personality may influence the rectal anastomotic decision.

AIM: Colorectal surgeons regularly make the decision to anastomose, defunction or form an end colostomy when performing rectal surgery. This study aimed to define personality traits of colorectal surgeons and explore any influence of such traits on the decision to perform a rectal anastomosis. METHOD: Fifty attendees of The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland 2016 Conference participated. After written consent, all underwent personality testing: alexithymia (inability to understand emotions), type of thinking process (intuitive versus rational) and personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, openness, emotional stability, conscientiousness). Questions were answered regarding anastomotic decisions in various clinical scenarios and results analysed to reveal any influence of the surgeon's personality on anastomotic decision. RESULTS: Participants were: male (86%), consultants (84%) and based in England (68%). Alexithymia was low (4%) with 81% displaying intuitive thinking (reflex, fast). Participants scored higher in emotional stability (ability to remain calm) and conscientiousness (organized, methodical) compared with population norms. Personality traits influenced the next anastomotic decision if: surgeons had recently received criticism at a departmental audit meeting; were operating with an anaesthetist that was not their regular one; or there had been no anastomotic leaks in their patients for over 1 year. CONCLUSION: Colorectal surgeons have speciality relevant personalities that potentially influence the important decision to anastomose and could explain the variation in surgical practice across the UK. Future work should explore these findings in other countries and any link of personality traits to patient-related outcomes.