Kara A Vande Walle1, Sudha R Pavuluri Quamme1, Heather L Beasley1, Glen E Leverson1, Hala N Ghousseini2, Janet C Dombrowski3, Brian T Fry4, Justin B Dimick4,5, Douglas A Wiegmann1,6, Caprice C Greenberg1. 1. Wisconsin Surgical Outcomes Research Program, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison. 2. Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Wisconsin School of Education, Madison. 3. JCD Advisors LLC, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 4. Center for Healthcare Outcomes & Policy, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 5. Surgical Innovation Editor, . 6. Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison.
Abstract
Importance: Surgical coaching continues to gain momentum as an innovative method for continuous professional development. A tool to measure the performance of a surgical coach is needed to provide formative feedback to coaches for continued skill development and to assess the fidelity of a coaching intervention for future research and dissemination. Objective: To evaluate the validity of the Wisconsin Surgical Coaching Rubric (WiSCoR), a novel tool to assess the performance of a peer surgical coach. Design, Setting, and Participants: Surgical coaching sessions from November 2014 through February 2018 conducted by 2 statewide peer surgical coaching programs were audio recorded and transcribed. Twelve raters used WiSCoR to rate the performance of the surgical coach for each session. The study included peer surgical coaches in the Wisconsin Surgical Coaching Program (n = 8) and the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative coaching program (n = 15). The data were analyzed in 2019. Interventions or Exposures: Use of WiSCoR to rate peer surgical coaching sessions. Main Outcomes and Measures: There were 282 WiSCoR ratings from the 106 coaching sessions included in the study. WiSCoR was evaluated using a framework, including inter-rater reliability assessed with Gwet weighted agreement coefficent. Descriptive statistics of WiSCoR were calculated. Results: Eight coaches (35%) and 11 coachees (29%) were from the Wisconsin Surgical Program and 15 coaches (65%) and 27 coachees (71%) were from the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative. The validity of WiSCoR is supported by high interrater reliability (Gwet weighted agreement coefficient, 0.87) as well as a weakly positive correlation of WiSCoR to coachee ratings of coaches (r = 0.22; P = .04), rigorous content development, consistent rater training, and the association of WiSCoR with coach and coaching program development. The mean (SD) overall coach performance rating using WiSCoR was 3.23 (0.82; range, 1-5). Conclusions and Relevance: WiSCoR is a reliable measure that can assess the performance of a surgical coach, inform fidelity to coaching principles, and provide formative feedback to surgical coaches. While coachee ratings may reflect coachee satisfaction, they are not able to determine the quality of a coach.
Importance: Surgical coaching continues to gain momentum as an innovative method for continuous professional development. A tool to measure the performance of a surgical coach is needed to provide formative feedback to coaches for continued skill development and to assess the fidelity of a coaching intervention for future research and dissemination. Objective: To evaluate the validity of the Wisconsin Surgical Coaching Rubric (WiSCoR), a novel tool to assess the performance of a peer surgical coach. Design, Setting, and Participants: Surgical coaching sessions from November 2014 through February 2018 conducted by 2 statewide peer surgical coaching programs were audio recorded and transcribed. Twelve raters used WiSCoR to rate the performance of the surgical coach for each session. The study included peer surgical coaches in the Wisconsin Surgical Coaching Program (n = 8) and the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative coaching program (n = 15). The data were analyzed in 2019. Interventions or Exposures: Use of WiSCoR to rate peer surgical coaching sessions. Main Outcomes and Measures: There were 282 WiSCoR ratings from the 106 coaching sessions included in the study. WiSCoR was evaluated using a framework, including inter-rater reliability assessed with Gwet weighted agreement coefficent. Descriptive statistics of WiSCoR were calculated. Results: Eight coaches (35%) and 11 coachees (29%) were from the Wisconsin Surgical Program and 15 coaches (65%) and 27 coachees (71%) were from the Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative. The validity of WiSCoR is supported by high interrater reliability (Gwet weighted agreement coefficient, 0.87) as well as a weakly positive correlation of WiSCoR to coachee ratings of coaches (r = 0.22; P = .04), rigorous content development, consistent rater training, and the association of WiSCoR with coach and coaching program development. The mean (SD) overall coach performance rating using WiSCoR was 3.23 (0.82; range, 1-5). Conclusions and Relevance: WiSCoR is a reliable measure that can assess the performance of a surgical coach, inform fidelity to coaching principles, and provide formative feedback to surgical coaches. While coachee ratings may reflect coachee satisfaction, they are not able to determine the quality of a coach.
Authors: Caprice C Greenberg; Hala N Ghousseini; Sudha R Pavuluri Quamme; Heather L Beasley; Douglas A Wiegmann Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Yue-Yung Hu; Sarah E Peyre; Alexander F Arriaga; Robert T Osteen; Katherine A Corso; Thomas G Weiser; Richard S Swanson; Stanley W Ashley; Chandrajit P Raut; Michael J Zinner; Atul A Gawande; Caprice C Greenberg Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Caprice C Greenberg; Hala N Ghousseini; Sudha R Pavuluri Quamme; Heather L Beasley; Lane L Frasier; Nicole A Brys; Janet C Dombrowski; Douglas A Wiegmann Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Sarah P Shubeck; Arielle E Kanters; Gurjit Sandhu; Caprice C Greenberg; Justin B Dimick Journal: Surgery Date: 2018-06-20 Impact factor: 3.982