Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 603

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Development of a rating system for surgeons' non‐technical skills

Yule, S, Flin, R, Paterson‐Brown, S, Maran, N, Rowley, D·2006·Medical Education

Abstract

Background Analyses of adverse events in surgery reveal that many underlying causes are behavioural, such as communication failure, rather than technical. Non‐technical (i.e. cognitive and interpersonal) skills are not addressed explicitly in surgical training. However, surgeons need to demonstrate these skills, which underpin their technical excellence, to maximise patient safety in the operating theatre. This paper describes the method used to identify surgeons' non‐technical skills, and the development of a skills taxonomy and behavioural rating system to structure observation and feedback in surgical training. Methods Cognitive task analyses (critical incident interviews) were conducted with 27 consultant surgeons in general, cardiac and orthopaedic surgery. The interviews were coded and a multidisciplinary group of surgeons and psychologists used an iterative process to develop a skills taxonomy. This was supported by data gathered from an attitude survey, literature review, analysis of surgical mortality reports and observations in theatre. Results Five categories of non‐technical skills were identified, including situation awareness, decision making, task management, leadership and communication and teamwork. This provided a structure for a prototype skill taxonomy (v1.1), which comprised 14 non‐technical skill elements. Observable behaviours (markers) indicative of good and poor performance were developed for each element by 16 consultant surgeons to form a prototype behaviour rating system. Conclusions The prototype skills taxonomy and behaviour rating system are grounded empirically in surgery. The reliability of the system is currently being tested using standardised scenarios. If this evaluation proves successful, the system could be used to structure feedback and guide non‐technical skills training.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02610.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 603

Metadata

Authors
Yule, S., Flin, R., Paterson‐Brown, S., Maran, N., & Rowley, D.
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-10-17
Volume
40
Issue
11
Pages
1098-1104
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
OpenAlex
W2148606079
Cited by
603
References
2
FWCI
15.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Development of a rating system for surgeons' non‐technical skills. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02610.x
The paper
Yule, S., Flin, R., Paterson‐Brown, S., Maran, N., & Rowley, D. (2006). Development of a rating system for surgeons' non‐technical skills. Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02610.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.