Surgeons' Coaching Techniques in the Surgical Coaching for Operative Performance Enhancement (SCOPE) Program.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate coaching techniques used by practicing surgeons who underwent dedicated coach training in a peer surgical coaching program. BACKGROUND: Surgical coaching is a developing strategy for improving surgeons' intraoperative performance. How to cultivate effective coaching skills among practicing surgeons is uncertain. METHODS: Through the Surgical Coaching for Operative Performance Enhancement (SCOPE) program, 46 surgeons within 4 US academic medical centers were assigned 1:1 into coach/coachee pairs. All attended a 3-hour Surgical Coaching Workshop-developed using evidence from the fields of surgery and education-then received weekly reminders. We analyzed workshop evaluations and audio transcripts of postoperative debriefs between coach/coachee pairs, co-coding themes based on established principles of effective coaching: (i) self-identified goals, (ii) collaborative analysis, (iii) constructive feedback, and (iv) action planning. Coaching principles were cross-referenced with intraoperative performance topics: technical, nontechnical, and teaching skills. RESULTS: For the 8 postoperative debriefs analyzed, mean duration was 24.4 min (range 7-47 minutes). Overall, 326 coaching examples were identified, demonstrating application of all 4 core principles of coaching. Constructive feedback (17.6 examples per debrief) and collaborative analysis (16.3) were utilized more frequently than goal-setting (3.9) and action planning (3.0). Debriefs focused more often on nontechnical skills (60%) than technical skills (32%) or teaching-specific skills (8%). Among surgeons who completed the workshop evaluation (82% completion rate), 90% rated the Surgical Coaching Workshop "good" or "excellent." CONCLUSIONS: Short-course coach trainings can help practicing surgeons use effective coaching techniques to guide their peers' performance improvement in a way that aligns with surgical culture.

Optimizing the Implementation of Surgical Coaching Through Feedback From Practicing Surgeons.

Importance: Surgical coaching is maturing as a tangible strategy for surgeons' continuing professional development. Resources to spread this innovation are not yet widely available. Objective: To identify surgeon-derived implementation recommendations for surgical coaching programs from participants' exit interviews and ratings of their coaching interactions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 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. Interventions: Surgeons 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 Measures: Themes 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. Results: Among 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 Relevance: These 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.

Surgical Coaching for Operative Performance Enhancement (SCOPE): skill ratings and impact on surgeons' practice.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for surgical coaching has yet to demonstrate an impact on surgeons' practice. We evaluated a surgical coaching program by analyzing quantitative and qualitative data on surgeons' intraoperative performance. METHODS: In the 2018-2019 Surgical Coaching for Operative Performance Enhancement (SCOPE) program, 46 practicing surgeons in multiple specialties at four academic medical centers were recruited to complete three peer coaching sessions, each comprising preoperative goal-setting, intraoperative observation, and postoperative debriefing. Coach and coachee rated the coachee's performance using modified Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS, range 1-5) and Non-Technical Skills for Surgeons (NOTSS, range 4-16). We used generalized estimating equations to evaluate trends in skill ratings over time, adjusting for case difficulty, clinical experience, and coaching role. Upon program completion, we analyzed semi-structured interviews with individual participants regarding the perceived impact of coaching on their practice. RESULTS: Eleven of 23 coachees (48%) completed three coaching sessions, three (13%) completed two sessions, and six (26%) completed one session. Adjusted mean OSATS ratings did not vary over three coaching sessions (4.39 vs 4.52 vs 4.44, respectively; P = 0.655). Adjusted mean total NOTSS ratings also did not vary over three coaching sessions (15.05 vs 15.50 vs 15.08, respectively; P = 0.529). Regarding patient care, participants self-reported improved teamwork skills, communication skills, and awareness in and outside the operating room. Participants acknowledged the potential for coaching to improve burnout due to reduced intraoperative stress and enhanced peer support but also the potential to worsen burnout by adding to chronic work overload. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons reported high perceived impact of peer coaching on patient care and surgeon well-being, although changes in coachees' technical and non-technical skills were not detected over three coaching sessions. While quantitative skill measurement warrants further study, longitudinal peer surgical coaching should be considered a meaningful strategy for surgeons' professional development.

Smartphone Global Positioning System (GPS) Data Enhances Recovery Assessment After Breast Cancer Surgery.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether smartphone GPS data uncovered differences in recovery after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy, and how these data aligned with self-reported quality of life (QoL). METHODS: In a prospective pilot study, adult smartphone-owners undergoing breast surgery downloaded an application that continuously collected smartphone GPS data for 1 week preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively. QoL was assessed with the Short-Form-36 (SF36) via smartphone delivery preoperatively and 4 and 12 weeks postoperatively. Endpoints were trends in daily GPS-derived distance traveled and home time, as well as SF36 Physical (PCS) and Mental Component Scores (MCS) comparing BCS and mastectomy patients. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were included. Sixteen BCS and fifteen mastectomy patients were followed for a mean of 201 (SD 161) and 174 (107) days, respectively. There were no baseline differences in demographics, PCS/MCS, home time, or distance traveled. Through 12 weeks postoperatively, mastectomy patients spent more time at home [e.g., week 4: 16.7 h 95% CI (14.3, 19.6) vs. 11.0 h (9.4, 12.9), p < 0.001] and traveled shorter distances [e.g., week 4: 52.5 km 95% CI (36.1, 76.0) vs. 107.7 km (75.8-152.9), p = 0.009] compared with BCS patients. There were no significant QoL differences throughout the study as measured by the MCS [e.g., week 4 difference: 7.83 95% CI (- 9.02, 24.7), p = 0.362] or PCS [e.g., week 4 difference: 8.14 (- 6.67, 22.9), p = 0.281]. GPS and QoL trends were uncorrelated (ρ < ± 0.26, p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in BCS and mastectomy recovery were successfully captured using smartphone GPS data. These data may describe currently unmeasured aspects of physical and mental recovery, which could supplement traditional and QoL outcomes to inform shared decision-making.