Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.
Division of Education, American College of Surgeons, Chicago, Illinois.
Ann Surg. 2022 Jan 1;275(1):80-84. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004910.
The objectives of this study were to review the coaching literature to (1) characterize the criteria integral to the coaching process, specifically in surgery, and (2) describe how these criteria have been variably implemented in published studies.
Coaching is a distinct educational intervention, but within surgery the term is frequently used interchangeably with other more established terms such as teaching and mentoring.
A systematic search was performed of the MEDLINE and Cochrane databases to identify studies that used coach/coaching as an intervention for surgeons for either technical or nontechnical skills. Study quality was evaluated using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI).
A total of 2280 articles were identified and after screening by title, abstract and full text, 35 remained. Thirteen coaching criteria (a-m) were identified in 4 general categories: 1. overarching goal (a. refine performance of an existing skill set), 2. the coach (b. trusting partnership, c. avoids assessment, d. 2-way communication), the coachee (e. voluntary participation, f. self-reflection, g. goal setting, h. action plan, i. outcome evaluation), and the coach-coachee rapport (j. coaching training, k. structured coaching model, l. non-directive, m. open ended questions). Adherence to these criteria ranged from as high of 73% of studies (voluntary participation of coach and coachee) to as low as 7% (use of open-ended questions).
Coaching is being used inconsistently within the surgical education literature. Our hope is that with establishing criteria for coaching, future studies will implement this intervention more consistently and allow for better comparison and generalization of results.
本研究旨在（1）综述教练文献，以明确手术相关的教练过程标准，以及（2）描述这些标准在已发表研究中的不同实施方式。
教练是一种独特的教育干预手段，但在外科领域，该术语常与其他更成熟的术语（如教学和指导）交替使用。
对 MEDLINE 和 Cochrane 数据库进行系统检索，以确定使用教练/指导作为干预手段的外科医生的技术或非技术技能的研究。使用医学教育研究质量工具（MERSQI）评估研究质量。
共确定了 2280 篇文章，经过标题、摘要和全文筛选后，仍有 35 篇文章保留。在 4 个一般类别中确定了 13 个教练标准（a-m）：1. 总体目标（a. 完善现有技能的表现）；2. 教练（b. 建立信任的伙伴关系，c. 避免评估，d. 双向沟通）；被教练（e. 自愿参与，f. 自我反思，g. 设定目标，h. 行动计划，i. 结果评估）；以及教练与被教练的关系（j. 教练培训，k. 结构化的教练模式，l. 非指导，m. 开放式问题）。这些标准的遵守程度从 73%（教练和被教练的自愿参与）到 7%（使用开放式问题）不等。
在外科教育文献中，教练的使用不一致。我们希望通过确定教练的标准，未来的研究将更一致地实施这一干预措施，并允许更好地比较和概括结果。
