Coaching Surgeons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Objective: To explore surgeons' perceptions of and potential concerns about coaching. Background: There is growing recognition that the traditional model of continuing professional development is suboptimal. This has led to increasing interest in alternative strategies that take place within the actual practice environment such as coaching. However, if coaching is to be a successful strategy for continuing professional development, it will need to be accepted by surgeons. Methods: This was a qualitative interview-based study using a constructivist grounded theory approach. Participants included 14 surgeons from University of Toronto–affiliated hospitals. Results: Participants expressed 3 main concerns about coaching: questioning the value of technical improvement (“As you get older if you don't have the stimulation from surgery to get better or to do things that are different and you are so good at so much, why bother [with coaching]?” P009), worry about appearing incompetent (“I think it would be perceived as either a sign of weakness or a sign of inability” P532), and concern about losing autonomy (“To me that would be real coaching where it's self-identified, I'm motivated, I find the person and then they coach me” P086). Conclusions and Relevance: Coaching faces unique challenges in the context of a powerful surgical culture that values the portrayal of competency and instills the value of surgical autonomy. This study suggests that hanging on to these tightly held values of competency and autonomy is actually limiting the ways, and extent to which, surgeons can improve their practice. This qualitative study exploring surgeons' perceptions of coaching revealed 3 main concerns. Although some surgeons questioned the value of technical improvement, the majority expressed concern about appearing incompetent and losing autonomy. Surgical cultural values of portraying competence and independence may be limiting the extent to which surgeons can improve.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.158 | 0.035 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".