The workday of hospital surgeons: what they do, what makes them satisfied, and the role of core tasks and administrative tasks; a diary study.

BACKGROUND Many surgeons report passion for their work, but not all tasks are likely to be satisfying. Little is known about how hospital surgeons spend their days, how they like specific tasks, and the role of core tasks (i.e. surgery-related tasks) versus tasks that may keep them from core tasks (e.g., administrative work). This study aimed at a more detailed picture of hospital surgeons' daily work - how much time they spend with different tasks, how they like them, and associations with satisfaction. METHODS Hospital surgeons (N = 105) responded to a general survey, and 81 of these provided up to five daily questionnaires concerning daily activities and their attractiveness, as well as their job satisfaction. The data were analyzed using t-tests, analysis of variance, as well as analysis of covariance and repeated measures analysis of variance for comparing means across tasks. RESULTS Among 14 tasks, surgery-related tasks took 21.2%, patient-related tasks 21.7% of the surgeons' time; 10.4% entailed meetings and communicating about patients, and 18.6% documentation and administration. The remaining time was spent with teaching, research, leadership and management, and not task-related activities (e.g. walking between rooms). Surgery was rated as most (4.25; SD = .66), administration as least attractive (2.63; SD = .78). A higher percentage of administration predicted lower perceived legitimacy; perceived legitimacy of administrative work predicted job satisfaction (r = .47). Residents were least satisfied; there were few gender differences. CONCLUSIONS Surgeons seem to thrive on their core tasks, most notably surgery. By contrast, administrative duties are likely perceived as keeping them from their core medical tasks. Increasing the percentage of medical tasks proper, notably surgery, and reducing administrative duties may contribute to hospital surgeons' job satisfaction

More Than Talking About the Weekend: Content of Case-Irrelevant Communication Within the OR Team.

BACKGROUND: Case-irrelevant communication (CIC) is defined as "any conversation" irrelevant to the case. It includes small talk, but also communication related to other work issues besides the actual task. CIC during surgeries is generally seen as distracting, despite a lack of knowledge about the content of CIC and its regulation in terms of adjustments to the situation of CIC. Primary goal of the study was to evaluate CIC content; secondary goal was to evaluate whether surgical teams regulate CIC according to different concentration demands of surgical procedures. METHODS: In 125 surgeries, 1396 CIC events were observed. CIC were content coded into work-related CIC (pertaining to other tasks or work in general) and social CIC (pertaining to acquaintance talk, gossip, or private conversation). The impact of different phases and the difficulty of the surgical procedure on CIC were assessed. RESULTS: Work-related CIC were significantly more frequent (2.49 per hour, SD = 2.17) than social CIC (1.42 per hour, SD = 2.17). Across phases, frequency of work-related CIC was constant, whereas social CIC increased significantly across phases. In surgeries assessed as highly difficult by the surgeons, social CIC were observed at a lower frequency, and less work-related CIC were observed during the main phase compared to surgeries assessed as less difficult. CONCLUSION: The high proportion of work-related CIC indicates that surgical teams deal with other tasks during surgeries. Surgical teams adapt CIC according to the demands of the procedure. Hospital policies should support these adaptations rather than attempt to suppress CIC entirely

More than experience: a post-task reflection intervention among team members enhances performance in student teams confronted with a simulated resuscitation task-a prospective randomised trial.

Background Teams that regularly step back from action and deliberately reflect on their performance and strategies show higher performance. Ad hoc emergency teams with changing team composition cannot develop such habits but may engage in short postaction reflection to discuss shortcomings of past performance and potential adaptations of their strategies for future similar tasks. This study aimed to test the effect of a short postaction self-led reflective team briefing on resuscitation performance in a simulator setting in terms of three performance parameters: hands-on time, coordination between chest compression and ventilation, and defibrillation. Methods We performed a randomised controlled trial including 56 ad hoc formed teams of three fourth-year medical students each. All groups performed a resuscitation task, followed by a self-guided reflective briefing, based on a general instruction (n=28 teams), or an unrelated discussion session (control condition; n=29), followed by a second resuscitation task in the same team composition. Results Adjusted for performance in the first task, teams in the reflection condition showed higher performance gain in the second resuscitation than teams in the control condition (6.21 percentage points (95% CI 1.31 to 11.10, p<0.001)) for basic hands-on performance; 15.0 percentage points (95% CI 2 to 28, p<0.001) for coordinative performance but non-significantly lower performance for defibrillation (-9%, 95% CI -27% to -9%, p=0.312). Conclusion Even very short self-led postaction reflective briefings enhance basic resuscitation performance in ad hoc groups but may not influence more complex aspects of the task. We recommend including short self-led team debriefings as part of simulator training