Identifying Naturalistic Coaching Behavior Among Practicing Surgeons in the Operating Room
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify examples of naturalistic coaching behavior among practicing surgeons operating together by analyzing their intraoperative discussion. BACKGROUND: Opportunities to improve surgical performance are limited for practicing surgeons; surgical coaching is one strategy to address this need. To develop peer coaching programs that integrate with surgical culture, a better understanding is needed of how surgeons routinely discuss operative performance. METHODS: As part of a "co-surgery" quality improvement program, 20 faculty surgeons were randomized into 10 dyads who performed an operation together. Discourse analysis was conducted on transcribed intraoperative discussions. Themes were coded using an existing framework of surgical coaching principles (self-identified goals, collaborative analysis, constructive feedback, peer learning support) and surgical coaching content (technical skills, nontechnical skills). Coaching principles were cross-referenced with coaching content; c-coefficient measured the strength of association between pairs of themes. RESULTS: Overall, 44 unique coaching examples were identified in 10 operations. Of the 4 principles of surgical coaching, only self-identified goals and collaborative analysis were identified consistently. Self-identified goals were most associated with discussions regarding technical skills of "tissue exposure," "flow of operation," and "instrument handling" and the nontechnical skill "situation awareness." Collaborative analysis was most associated with discussions regarding technical skills of "respect for tissue" and "flow of operation" and nontechnical skills of "communication and teamwork." CONCLUSIONS: In naturalistic discussions between practicing surgeons in the operating room, numerous examples of unprompted coaching behavior were identified that target intraoperative performance. Prominent coaching gaps-constructive feedback and peer learning support-were also observed. Surgical coach trainings should address these gaps.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".