Abstract：
The objectives of this study were to review the coaching literature to (1) characterize the criteria integral to the coaching process, specifically in surgery, and (2) describe how these criteria have been variably implemented in published studies.
Coaching is a distinct educational intervention, but within surgery the term is frequently used interchangeably with other more established terms such as teaching and mentoring.
A systematic search was performed of the MEDLINE and Cochrane databases to identify studies that used coach/coaching as an intervention for surgeons for either technical or nontechnical skills. Study quality was evaluated using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI).
A total of 2280 articles were identified and after screening by title, abstract and full text, 35 remained. Thirteen coaching criteria (a-m) were identified in 4 general categories: 1. overarching goal (a. refine performance of an existing skill set), 2. the coach (b. trusting partnership, c. avoids assessment, d. 2-way communication), the coachee (e. voluntary participation, f. self-reflection, g. goal setting, h. action plan, i. outcome evaluation), and the coach-coachee rapport (j. coaching training, k. structured coaching model, l. non-directive, m. open ended questions). Adherence to these criteria ranged from as high of 73% of studies (voluntary participation of coach and coachee) to as low as 7% (use of open-ended questions).
Coaching is being used inconsistently within the surgical education literature. Our hope is that with establishing criteria for coaching, future studies will implement this intervention more consistently and allow for better comparison and generalization of results.
Coaching is a distinct educational intervention, but within surgery the term is frequently used interchangeably with other more established terms such as teaching and mentoring.
A systematic search was performed of the MEDLINE and Cochrane databases to identify studies that used coach/coaching as an intervention for surgeons for either technical or nontechnical skills. Study quality was evaluated using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI).
A total of 2280 articles were identified and after screening by title, abstract and full text, 35 remained. Thirteen coaching criteria (a-m) were identified in 4 general categories: 1. overarching goal (a. refine performance of an existing skill set), 2. the coach (b. trusting partnership, c. avoids assessment, d. 2-way communication), the coachee (e. voluntary participation, f. self-reflection, g. goal setting, h. action plan, i. outcome evaluation), and the coach-coachee rapport (j. coaching training, k. structured coaching model, l. non-directive, m. open ended questions). Adherence to these criteria ranged from as high of 73% of studies (voluntary participation of coach and coachee) to as low as 7% (use of open-ended questions).
Coaching is being used inconsistently within the surgical education literature. Our hope is that with establishing criteria for coaching, future studies will implement this intervention more consistently and allow for better comparison and generalization of results.
摘要：
本研究的目的是回顾教练文献，以（1）表征教练过程中不可或缺的标准，特别是在手术中，和(2)描述这些标准是如何在已发表的研究中可变地实施的。
辅导是一种独特的教育干预，但在手术中,该术语经常与其他更成熟的术语(如教学和指导)互换使用.
对MEDLINE和Cochrane数据库进行了系统搜索，以确定使用教练/教练作为外科医生技术或非技术技能干预措施的研究。使用医学教育研究质量工具（MERSQI）评估研究质量。
总共识别出2280篇文章，经过标题筛选，摘要和全文，35仍然在4个一般类别中确定了13个教练标准(a-m):1.总体目标(a.改进现有技能集的表现)，2.教练（b。信任伙伴关系，C.避免评估，D.双向通信)，coachee(e.自愿参与,f.自我反省，G.目标设定，h.行动计划,I.结果评估)，和教练与教练的融洽关系（j。教练训练,k.结构化教练模式，l.非指令，m.开放式问题)。遵守这些标准的范围从73％的研究（教练和教练的自愿参与）到低至7％（使用开放式问题）。
在外科教育文献中，教练的使用不一致。我们希望通过建立教练标准，未来的研究将更一致地实施这项干预措施,并允许更好地比较和推广结果.
辅导是一种独特的教育干预，但在手术中,该术语经常与其他更成熟的术语(如教学和指导)互换使用.
对MEDLINE和Cochrane数据库进行了系统搜索，以确定使用教练/教练作为外科医生技术或非技术技能干预措施的研究。使用医学教育研究质量工具（MERSQI）评估研究质量。
总共识别出2280篇文章，经过标题筛选，摘要和全文，35仍然在4个一般类别中确定了13个教练标准(a-m):1.总体目标(a.改进现有技能集的表现)，2.教练（b。信任伙伴关系，C.避免评估，D.双向通信)，coachee(e.自愿参与,f.自我反省，G.目标设定，h.行动计划,I.结果评估)，和教练与教练的融洽关系（j。教练训练,k.结构化教练模式，l.非指令，m.开放式问题)。遵守这些标准的范围从73％的研究（教练和教练的自愿参与）到低至7％（使用开放式问题）。
在外科教育文献中，教练的使用不一致。我们希望通过建立教练标准，未来的研究将更一致地实施这项干预措施,并允许更好地比较和推广结果.
