‘The other right’: control strategies and the role of language use in laparoscopic training

Emmerton‐Coughlin, Heather; Schlachta, Christopher M.; Lingard, Lorelei

doi:10.1111/medu.13420

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Teaching in the laparoscopic environment appears to include frequent use of deictic language. 40 This type of language, unaccompanied by gestures or additional language, can be ambiguous and ultimately compromise patient safety. Koschman et al also emphasize the importance of body movement in surgical learning to display, assess and ultimately understand certain phenomena.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching in the robotic environment: Use of alternative approaches to guide operative instruction

Green

Chu

Huang

et al. 2020

The American Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching in the robotic environment: Use of alternative approaches to guide operative instruction

Green

Chu

Huang

et al. 2020

The American Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…is invariably associated with increased cognitive load, which subsequently influences learning [11,22,23,25,26]. The cognitive load is defined as the information processed by the working memory, which is limited in its capacity to process information [27]. Continuous practice during learning maximizes the recruitment of working memory [28,29].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive training for robotic surgery: a chance to optimize surgical training? A pilot study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rapid rise of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has necessitated an efficient and standardized training curriculum. Cognitive training (CT) can significantly improve skills, such as attention, working memory and problem solving, and can enhance surgical capacity and support RAS training. This pilot study was carried out between 02/2019 and 04/2019. The participants included 33 student volunteers, randomized into 3 groups: group 1 received training using the da Vinci training simulator, group 2 received computer-based cognitive training, and group 3 was the control group without training. Before (T1) and after-training (T2), performance was measured. Additionally, expert ratings and self-evaluations were collected. Subjective evaluations of performance were supplemented by evaluations based on three scales from the revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R). In total, 25 probands remained with complete data for further analyses: n = 8 (group 1), n = 7 (group 2) and n = 10 (group 3). There were no significant differences in T1 and T2 among all three groups. The average training gain of group 1 and 2 was 15.87% and 24.6%, respectively, (a restricting condition is the loss of the last training session in group 2). Analyses of semi-structured psychological interviews (SPIs) revealed no significant differences for T1, but in T2, significance occurred at ‘self-reflection’ for group 2 (F(2.22) = 8.56; p < .005). The efficacy of CT in training highly complex and difficult procedures, such as RAS, is a proven and accepted fact. Further investigation involving higher numbers of training trials (while also being cost effective) should be performed.

show abstract

“…To guard against this source of incoherence in your results writing, consider applying the "quotation sandwich" technique (Graff & Birkenstein, 2018) to contextualise before the quotation and summarise your interpretation after it. In the following illustration (Emmerton-Coughlin et al, 2017), the transcription of a video excerpt is set off in Box 3, sandwiched by introductory text that sets up what's being illustrated and summary text that provides detailed analysis of the point:…”

Section: Clerkship Directors Struggled To Remediate Unprofessional Behavior: " It's Probably the Most Difficult Part Of The Role When Youmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three principles for writing an effective qualitative results section

Cristancho

Watling

Lingard

2021

FoHPE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Writing an effective qualitative results section can be a daunting task. How do you report the findings of the study and tell a compelling story? It is this delicate balance that we strive to navigate in this paper. We offer three principles—storytelling, authenticity and argument—to help writers envision the story they will tell, select the data as evidence for that story and integrate quotations to guide the reader’s interpretation. Practical advice and concrete illustrations make the principles easy to apply to your own writing. Finally, by reflecting on how historical, methodological and disciplinary elements shape their application, you will be able to use these principles to enhance the persuasiveness of your qualitative results section.

show abstract

‘The other right’: control strategies and the role of language use in laparoscopic training

Cited by 10 publications

References 20 publications

Teaching in the robotic environment: Use of alternative approaches to guide operative instruction

Teaching in the robotic environment: Use of alternative approaches to guide operative instruction

Cognitive training for robotic surgery: a chance to optimize surgical training? A pilot study

Three principles for writing an effective qualitative results section

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About