Perceptions of the multidisciplinary operative team on intraoperative telecoaching among surgeons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Telecoaching, intraoperative coaching through videoconference, has been suggested as a tool to overcome logistical barriers with in-person coaching. However, little is known about the operative team's perception of telecoaching and its unique set of challenges. This qualitative study explores the perceptions of the multidisciplinary operative team on surgical telecoaching. A telecoaching program between peer surgeons was implemented using the Karl Storz Visitor1 remote presence system (Karl Storz, Germany). Semistructured interviews were conducted with the 12 operative team members present during 2 telecoaching sessions completed during the study period. Twelve participants were interviewed. The 4 central themes that emerged from the data were effective communication and collaboration, improving performance, operating room workflow, and culture and optics. Participating surgeon mentees reported that the session met expectations and learning goals and revealed concerns about negative perception of their autonomy and expertise by colleagues and patients. Conversely, team members unanimously reported a positive impression of surgeon mentees for taking additional measures to improve their performance and for patient outcomes. The operative team members reported that telecoaching was conducive to their own learning and relevant for complex cases. Considerations for future implementation of telecoaching include robust privacy standards for patients and staff, strong internet connectivity, coordinating with the operative team, and space constraints. Operative team participants viewed the intervention favorably and identified practical considerations for its continued use in an operating room environment. However, more work is needed on surgical culture as a contributor to low adoption and its impact on coaching programming activity.
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".