Comparative Study
Journal Article
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Integrating Postoperative Feedback Into Workflow: Perceived Practices and Barriers.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have found that both resident and staff surgeons highly value postoperative feedback; and that such feedback has high educational value. However, little is known about how to consistently deliver this feedback. Our aim was to understand how often surgical residents should receive feedback and what barriers are preventing this from occurring.

DESIGN: Surveys were distributed to resident and attending surgeons. Questions focused on the current frequency of postoperative feedback, desired frequency and methods of feedback, and perceived barriers. Quantitative data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, and text responses were examined using coding.

SETTING: University-based general surgery department at a Midwestern institution.

PARTICIPANTS: General surgery residents (n = 23) and attending surgeons (n = 22) participated in this study.

RESULTS: Residents reported receiving and staff reported giving feedback for procedure-specific performance after 25% versus 34% of cases, general technical feedback after 36% versus 32%, and nontechnical performance after 17% versus 18%. Both perceived procedure-specific and general technical feedback should be given more than 80% of the time, and nontechnical feedback should happen for nearly 60% of cases. Verbal feedback immediately after the operation was rated as best practice. Both parties identified time, conflicting responsibilities, lack of privacy, and discomfort with giving and receiving meaningful feedback as barriers.

CONCLUSIONS: Both resident and staff surgeons agree that postoperative feedback is given far less often than it should. Future work should study intraoperative and postoperative feedback to validate resident and attending surgeons' perceptions such that interventions to improve and facilitate this process can be developed.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app