Vanessa N Palter1, Kaitlyn A Beyfuss2, Adam R Jokhio2, Agnes Ryzynski2, Shady Ashamalla2. 1. Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Canada. Electronic address: Vanessa.palter@mail.utoronto.ca. 2. Department of Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preliminary evidence suggests that coaching is an effective adjunct in resident training. The learning needs of faculty, however, are different from those of trainees. Assessing the effectiveness of peer coaching at improving the technical proficiency of practicing surgeons is an area that remains largely unexplored. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of a peer coaching program that teaches laparoscopic suturing to faculty surgeons. METHODS:Surgeons inexperienced in laparoscopic suturing were randomized to either conventional training or peer coaching. Both groups performed a pretest on a box trainer. The conventional training group then received a web link to a tutorial for teaching laparoscopic suturing and a box trainer for independent practice. In addition to the web link and the box trainer, the peer coaching group received 2 half hour peer coaching sessions. Both groups then performed a stitch on the box trainer that was video recorded. The primary outcome measure was technical performance, which was assessed by a global rating scale. RESULTS:Eighteen faculty wererandomized (conventional training n = 9; peer coaching n = 9). Initially, there was no difference in technical skills between the groups (conventional training median score 10 [interquartile range 8.5-15]; peer coaching 13 [10.5-14]; P = .64). After the intervention, the peer coaching group had improved technical performance (conventional training 11 [8.5-12.5]; peer coaching 18 [17-19]; P < .01). Comparing the pre- and postintervention scores within both groups, there was an improvement in technical proficiency in the peer coaching group, yet none in the conventional training group (before conventional training 10 [8.5-15], after conventional training 11 [8.5-12.5]; P = .56; before peer coaching 13 [10.5-14], after peer coaching 18 [17-19]; P < .01). CONCLUSION: This trial demonstrates that a structured peer coaching program can facilitate faculty surgeons learning a novel procedure.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Preliminary evidence suggests that coaching is an effective adjunct in resident training. The learning needs of faculty, however, are different from those of trainees. Assessing the effectiveness of peer coaching at improving the technical proficiency of practicing surgeons is an area that remains largely unexplored. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of a peer coaching program that teaches laparoscopic suturing to faculty surgeons. METHODS: Surgeons inexperienced in laparoscopic suturing were randomized to either conventional training or peer coaching. Both groups performed a pretest on a box trainer. The conventional training group then received a web link to a tutorial for teaching laparoscopic suturing and a box trainer for independent practice. In addition to the web link and the box trainer, the peer coaching group received 2 half hour peer coaching sessions. Both groups then performed a stitch on the box trainer that was video recorded. The primary outcome measure was technical performance, which was assessed by a global rating scale. RESULTS: Eighteen faculty were randomized (conventional training n = 9; peer coaching n = 9). Initially, there was no difference in technical skills between the groups (conventional training median score 10 [interquartile range 8.5-15]; peer coaching 13 [10.5-14]; P = .64). After the intervention, the peer coaching group had improved technical performance (conventional training 11 [8.5-12.5]; peer coaching 18 [17-19]; P < .01). Comparing the pre- and postintervention scores within both groups, there was an improvement in technical proficiency in the peer coaching group, yet none in the conventional training group (before conventional training 10 [8.5-15], after conventional training 11 [8.5-12.5]; P = .56; before peer coaching 13 [10.5-14], after peer coaching 18 [17-19]; P < .01). CONCLUSION: This trial demonstrates that a structured peer coaching program can facilitate faculty surgeons learning a novel procedure.
Authors: Ryan Daniel; Tyler McKechnie; Colin C Kruse; Marc Levin; Yung Lee; Aristithes G Doumouras; Dennis Hong; Cagla Eskicioglu Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 3.453
Authors: Eileen M Dryden; Justeen K Hyde; Jolie B Wormwood; Juliet Wu; Rodney Calloway; Sarah L Cutrona; Glyn Elwyn; Gemmae M Fix; Michelle B Orner; Stephanie L Shimada; Barbara G Bokhour Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-08-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Sofia Valanci-Aroesty; Liane S Feldman; Julio F Fiore; Lawrence Lee; Gerald M Fried; Carmen L Mueller Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 3.453
Authors: Leonard Bikinesi; Gillian O'Bryan; Clay Roscoe; Tadesse Mekonen; Naemi Shoopala; Assegid T Mengistu; Souleymane Sawadogo; Simon Agolory; Gram Mutandi; Valerie Garises; Rituparna Pati; Laura Tison; Ledor Igboh; Carla Johnson; Evelyn M Rodriguez; Tedd Ellerbrock; Heather Menzies; Andrew L Baughman; Laura Brandt; Norbert Forster; John Scott; Brian Wood; Kenton T Unruh; Sanjeev Arora; Michelle Iandiorio; Summers Kalishman; Sarah Zalud-Cerrato; Jutta Lehmer; Stephen Lee; Mohammed A Mahdi; Samantha Spedoske; Alexandra Zuber; Brigg Reilley; Christian B Ramers; Ndapewa Hamunime; Gabrielle O'Malley; Bruce Struminger Journal: Hum Resour Health Date: 2020-09-01