Helping the Surgeon Recover: Peer-to-Peer Coaching after Bile Duct Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bile duct injury sustained during laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with high morbidity and mortality, and can be a devastating complication for a general surgeon. We introduce a novel, individualized surgical coaching program for surgeons who recently injured a bile duct in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We aim to explore the perception of coaching among these surgeons and to assess surgeons' experiences in the coaching program. STUDY DESIGN: Six general surgeons who injured a bile duct at an emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy participated in a 1-on-1 coaching session with a hepatopancreatobiliary surgeon. The session focused on debriefing the index case with video feedback, and discussion of strategies for safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The pilot program ran from March to November 2020. Exit interviews were then conducted. Themes covering perception of surgical training, perception of complications, and experience in the coaching program were explored. RESULTS: Surgeons were generally accepting of the coaching program, especially when the goals aligned with their self-identified areas of development. One-on-1 sessions with a local expert in the area, and the use of video feedback created a unique and interactive coaching opportunity. Peer coaching was identified as a valuable resource in helping surgeons regain confidence and maintain well-being after a bile duct injury. Maintaining a collegial, nonjudgmental relationship is critical in establishing positive coaching experiences. CONCLUSIONS: An individualized surgical coaching program creates a unique opportunity for professional development and may help promote safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".