Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 32, Issue 10, pp 4183–4190 | Cite as

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

  • Matthew D. Timberlake
  • Dimitrios Stefanidis
  • Aimee K. Gardner
Article

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.

Keywords

Coaching Stress Physiologic stress Eustress Self-monitoring 

Abbreviations

OR

Operating room

HR

Heart rate

HRV

Heart rate variability

RF

Respiration frequency

ECG

Electrocardiogram

Notes

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.

Compliance with ethical standards

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Parsloe E (1999) The manager as coach and mentor. CIPD Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. 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):979–986Google Scholar
  3. 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–E160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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):105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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):578–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hamad GG, Brown MT, Clavijo-Alvarez JA (2007) Postoperative video debriefing reduces technical errors in laparoscopic surgery. Am J Surg 194(1):110–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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):2240–2243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 e241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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):e006759CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 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):1124–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Snyder M, Gangestad S (1986) On the nature of self-monitoring: matters of assessment, matters of validity. J Pers Soc Psychol 51(1):125–139Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    London M, Smither JW (2002) Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance management process. Hum Resour Manag Rev 12(1):81–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hodges NJ, Franks IM (2002) Modelling coaching practice: the role of instruction and demonstration. J Sports Sci 20(10):793–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Magill RA, Anderson D (2007) Motor learning and control: concepts and applications. vol 11, McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lennox RD, Wolfe RN (1984) Revision of the self-monitoring scale. J Pers Soc Psychol 46(6):1349–1364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Available at: http://www.flsprogram.org. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
  18. 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):23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heslin PA, VandeWalle D (2008) Managers’ implicit assumptions about personnel. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 17(3):219–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gregory JB, Levy PE (2010) Employee coaching relationships: enhancing construct clarity and measurement. Coaching 3(2):109–123Google Scholar
  21. 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):205–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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):862–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fitts PM, Posner MI (1967) Human performance. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Pacific GroveGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    O’Connor A, Schwaitzberg S, Cao C (2008) How much feedback is necessary for learning to suture? Surg Endosc 22(7):1614–1619Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Francis DO, Eavey RD, Wright HV, Sinard RJ (2016) Incorporating postoperative debriefing into surgical education. J Surg Educ 73(3):448–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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):365–371Google Scholar
  28. 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):99–107Google Scholar
  29. 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):75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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):63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hooyman A, Wulf G, Lewthwaite R (2014) Impacts of autonomy-supportive versus controlling instructional language on motor learning. Hum Mov Sci 36:190–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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):1143–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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):304–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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):527–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wulf G, Shea C, Lewthwaite R (2010) Motor skill learning and performance: a review of influential factors. Med Educ 44(1):75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stein PK, Bosner MS, Kleiger RE, Conger BM (1994) Heart rate variability: a measure of cardiac autonomic tone. Am Heart J 127(5):1376–1381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cardiology TFotESo (1996) Heart rate variability standards of measurement, physiological interpretation, and clinical use. Eur Heart J 17:354–381Google Scholar
  38. 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 IEEEGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 2008Google Scholar
  40. 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 2013Google Scholar
  41. 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 2015Google Scholar
  42. 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):528–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Buchheit M, Chivot A, Parouty J et al (2010) Monitoring endurance running performance using cardiac parasympathetic function. Eur J Appl Physiol 108(6):1153–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yerkes RM, Dodson JD (1908) The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. J Comp Neurol Psychol 18(5):459–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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):477–483Google Scholar
  46. 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):774–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Min H, Morales DR, Orgill D, Smink DS, Yule S (2015) Systematic review of coaching to enhance surgeons’ operative performance. Surgery 158(5):1168–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Shebilskem WL, Regian JW, Arthur W, Jordan JA (1992) A dyadic protocol for training complex skills. Hum Factors 34(3):369–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Shea CH, Wright DL, Wulf G, Whitacre C (2000) Physical and observational practice afford unique learning opportunities. J Mot Behav 32(1):27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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):243–250Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Timberlake MD, Mayo HG, Scott L, Weis J, Gardner AK (2017) What do we know about intraoperative teaching?: a systematic review. Ann Surg 266:251–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew D. Timberlake
    • 1
  • Dimitrios Stefanidis
    • 2
  • Aimee K. Gardner
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of UrologyUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryIndiana UniversityIndianapolisUSA
  3. 3.Department of Surgery, School of Allied Health SciencesBaylor College of MedicineHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations