BACKGROUND: Verbal communication in the operating room during surgical procedures affects team performance, reflects individual skills, and is related to the complexity of the operation process. During the procedural training of surgeons (residents), feedback and guidance is given through verbal communication. A classification method based on structural analysis of the contents was developed to analyze verbal communication. This study aimed to evaluate whether a classification method for the contents of verbal communication in the operating room could provide insight into the teaching processes. METHODS: Eight laparoscopic cholecystectomies were videotaped. Two entire cholecystectomies and the dissection phase of six additional procedures were analyzed by categorization of the communication in terms of type (4 categories: commanding, explaining, questioning, and miscellaneous) and content (9 categories: operation method, location, direction, instrument handling, visualization, anatomy and pathology, general, private, undefinable). The operation was divided into six phases: start, dissection, clipping, separating, control, closing. RESULTS: Classification of the communication during two entire procedures showed that each phase of the operation was dominated by different kinds of communication. A high percentage of explaining anatomy and pathology was found throughout the whole procedure except for the control and closing phases. In the dissection phases, 60% of verbal communication concerned explaining. These explaining communication events were divided as follows: 27% operation method, 19% anatomy and pathology, 25% location (positioning of the instrument-tissue interaction), 15% direction (direction of tissue manipulation), 11% instrument handling, and 3% other nonclassified instructions. CONCLUSION: The proposed classification method is feasible for analyzing verbal communication during surgical procedures. Communication content objectively reflects the interaction between surgeon and resident. This information can potentially be used to specify training needs, and may contribute to the evaluation of different training methods.
BACKGROUND: Verbal communication in the operating room during surgical procedures affects team performance, reflects individual skills, and is related to the complexity of the operation process. During the procedural training of surgeons (residents), feedback and guidance is given through verbal communication. A classification method based on structural analysis of the contents was developed to analyze verbal communication. This study aimed to evaluate whether a classification method for the contents of verbal communication in the operating room could provide insight into the teaching processes. METHODS: Eight laparoscopic cholecystectomies were videotaped. Two entire cholecystectomies and the dissection phase of six additional procedures were analyzed by categorization of the communication in terms of type (4 categories: commanding, explaining, questioning, and miscellaneous) and content (9 categories: operation method, location, direction, instrument handling, visualization, anatomy and pathology, general, private, undefinable). The operation was divided into six phases: start, dissection, clipping, separating, control, closing. RESULTS: Classification of the communication during two entire procedures showed that each phase of the operation was dominated by different kinds of communication. A high percentage of explaining anatomy and pathology was found throughout the whole procedure except for the control and closing phases. In the dissection phases, 60% of verbal communication concerned explaining. These explaining communication events were divided as follows: 27% operation method, 19% anatomy and pathology, 25% location (positioning of the instrument-tissue interaction), 15% direction (direction of tissue manipulation), 11% instrument handling, and 3% other nonclassified instructions. CONCLUSION: The proposed classification method is feasible for analyzing verbal communication during surgical procedures. Communication content objectively reflects the interaction between surgeon and resident. This information can potentially be used to specify training needs, and may contribute to the evaluation of different training methods.
Authors: Neal E Seymour; Anthony G Gallagher; Sanziana A Roman; Michael K O'Brien; Vipin K Bansal; Dana K Andersen; Richard M Satava Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Nick Sevdalis; Helen W L Wong; Sonal Arora; Kamal Nagpal; Andrew Healey; George B Hanna; Charles A Vincent Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Kirsten R Henken; Frank Willem Jansen; Jan Klein; Laurents P S Stassen; Jenny Dankelman; John J van den Dobbelsteen Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Jay N Nathwani; Carly E Glarner; Katherine E Law; Robert J McDonald; Amy B Zelenski; Jacob A Greenberg; Eugene F Foley Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2016-11-25 Impact factor: 2.891