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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cites
The critical incident technique.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0061470 · Cited by 8,191
Fletcher, G., Flin, R., McGeorge, P., Glavin, R., Maran, N., & Patey, R. (2003) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1093/bja/aeg112 · Cited by 958
Self-citation
Cited by
Teamwork and patient safety in dynamic domains of healthcare: A review of the literature
MANSER, T. (2009) · Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/j.1399-6576.2008.01717.x · Cited by 1,322
Patterson, M. D., Geis, G. L., Falcone, R. A., LeMaster, T., & Wears, R. L. (2013) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000942 · Cited by 472
McCulloch, P., Mishra, A., Handa, A., Dale, T., Hirst, G., & Catchpole, K. (2009) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2008.032045 · Cited by 393
Bracq, M.-S., Michinov, E., & Jannin, P. (2019) · Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · doi:10.1097/sih.0000000000000347 · Cited by 332
Conchie, S. M., Taylor, P. J., & Donald, I. J. (2012) · Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0025101 · Cited by 155
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.