Cited by 16Innovations in Medical EducationSurgical Simulation and TrainingClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

How can surgeons facilitate resident intraoperative decision-making?

Hill, Katherine A., Dasari, Mohini, Littleton, Eliza B., Hamad, Giselle G.·2017·The American Journal of Surgery

Abstract

Background Cognitive skills such as decision-making are critical to developing operative autonomy. We explored resident decision-making using a recollection of specific examples, from the attending surgeon and resident, after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods In a separate semi-structured interview, the attending and resident both answered five questions, regarding the resident's operative roles and decisions, ways the attending helped, times when the attending operated, and the effect of the relationship between attending and resident. Themes were extracted using inductive methods. Results Thirty interviews were completed after 15 cases. Facilitators of decision-making included dialogue, safe struggle, and appreciation for retraction. Aberrant case characteristics, anatomic uncertainties, and time pressures provided barriers. Attending-resident mismatches included descriptions of transitioning control to the attending. Conclusions Reciprocal dialogue, including concept-driven feedback, is helpful during intraoperative teaching. Unanticipated findings impede resident decision-making, and we describe differences in understanding transfers of operative control. Given these factors, we suggest that pre-operative discussions may be beneficial.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.06.006

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The hierarchical verification-driven workflow used in radiology improves the diagnostic accuracy of the final report.

    “This hierarchical, verification-driven workflow improves diagnostic accuracy of the final report”

    From MARCH: Multi-Agent Radiology Clinical Hierarchy for CT Report Generation (2026) · cites this paper as Hill et al., 2017

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hill, K. A., Dasari, M., Littleton, E. B., & Hamad, G. G.
Affiliations
  • UPMC Presbyterian (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Magee-Womens Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
  • Hill, Katherine A.
  • Dasari, Mohini
  • Littleton, Eliza B.
  • Hamad, Giselle G.
Venue
The American Journal of Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-10
Volume
214
Issue
4
Pages
583-588
ISSN
0002-9610 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2638391178
Cited by
16
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3
FWCI
0.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The American Journal of Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical Simulation and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
surgical residents, intraoperative decision-making, operative autonomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, intraoperative teaching, feedback, time pressure, surgical training
MeSH terms
Adult, Clinical Competence, Decision Making, Education, Medical, Graduate, Female, Humans, Internship and Residency, Interviews as Topic, Male, Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic, Surgeons

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review