Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Predictors of the response of operating room personnel to surgeon behaviors

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Surgery Today Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Several studies have assessed the physician–nurse relationship, particularly between females working together. While the surgeon workforce is increasingly represented by females, gendered relationships and biases in the operating room remain largely unstudied.

Methods

We performed a prospective randomized study in which operative support staff, including nurses, surgical technologists, and surgical assistants, assessed scenarios describing questionable surgeon behaviors. Respondents were randomized to a survey that either discussed a female or male surgeon. For each scenario, one of the four standardized responses was selected. The respondents’ assessments of surgeon behaviors were analyzed.

Results

The response rate was 4.4% (3128/71143). Females were more likely than males to deem the surgeon’s behavior inappropriate regardless of surgeon sex (p = 0.001). The likelihood of writing up the surgeon was predicted by role, with technologists, nurses, and assistants reporting surgeons at frequencies of 65.5%, 53.2%, and 48.8%, respectively (p = 0.008). While the overall respondents did not show a propensity to write-up either sex differentially (p = 0.070), technologists were significantly more likely to report female surgeons than male surgeons (p = 0.006).

Conclusion

Characteristics of operative personnel were correlated with varying tolerance of surgeon behaviors, with specific subgroups more critical of female surgeons than males. Further exploration of these perceptions will serve to improve interactions in a diverse workplace.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

RN:

Registered nurse

OR:

Operating room

ST:

Surgical technologist

SA:

Surgical assistant

References

  1. Ali AM, McVay CL. Women in surgery: a history of adversity, resilience, and accomplishment. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;223(4):670–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wirtzfeld DA. The history of women in surgery. Can J Surg. 2009;52(4):317–20.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. McLemore EC, Ramamoorthy S, Peterson CY, Bass BL. Women in surgery: bright, sharp, brave, and temperate. Perm J. 2012;16(3):54–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. AAMC. Women in US academic medicine and science: statistics and benchmarking report, 2011–2012. 2012. https://members.aamc.org/eweb/upload/Women%20in%20U%20S%20%20Academic%20Medicine%20Statistics%20and%20Benchmarking%20Report%202011-20123.pdf. Accessed 27 Dec 2018.

  5. AAMC. Table C-1: residency applicants to ACGME-accredited programs by specialty and sex, 2018–2019. 2018. https://www.aamc.org/download/321558/data/factstablec1.pdf. Accessed 27 Dec 2018.

  6. Gjerberg E, Kjolsrod L. The doctor-nurse relationship: how easy is it to be a female doctor co-operating with a female nurse? Soc Sci Med. 2001;52(2):189–202.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Braun HJ, O'Sullivan PS, Dusch MN, Antrum S, Ascher NL. Improving interprofessional collaboration: evaluation of implicit attitudes in the surgeon-nurse relationship. Int J Surg. 2015;13:175–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Biernat MFK. Shifting standards and the evaluation of competence: complexity in gender-based judgment and decision making. J Soc Issues. 2002;57:707–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wear D, Keck-McNulty C. Attitudes of female nurses and female residents toward each other: a qualitative study in one US teaching hospital. Acad Med. 2004;79(4):291–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Galvin SL, Parlier AB, Martino E, Scott KR, Buys E. Gender bias in nurse evaluations of residents in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(Suppl 4):7s–12s.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bruce AN, Battista A, Plankey MW, Johnson LB, Marshall MB. Perceptions of gender-based discrimination during surgical training and practice. Med Educ Online. 2015;20:25923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Larson DL. Bridging the generation X gap in plastic surgery training: part 1. Identifying the problem. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;112(6):1656–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Larson DL. Bridging the generation X gap in plastic surgery training: part 2. A proposed solution—identifying a “best practice” in a plastic surgery training program. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;112(6):1662–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Stevens RJ, Hamilton NM. Is there a digital generation gap for e-learning in plastic surgery? J Surg Educ. 2012;69(3):344–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lancaster G, Kolakowsky-Hayner S, Kovacich J, Greer-Williams N. Interdisciplinary communication and collaboration among physicians, nurses, and unlicensed assistive personnel. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2015;47(3):275–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. House S, Havens D. Nurses’ and physicians’ perceptions of nurse–physician collaboration: a systematic review. J Nurs Adm. 2017;47(3):165–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Singer SJ, Molina G, Li Z, Jiang W, Nurudeen S, Kite JG, et al. Relationship between operating room teamwork, contextual factors, and safety checklist performance. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;223(4):568–80.e2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fudickar A, Horle K, Wiltfang J, Bein B. The effect of the WHO surgical safety checklist on complication rate and communication. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2012;109(42):695–701.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Stein LI. The doctor–nurse game. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1967;16(6):699–703.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Anhang Price R, Sloss EM, Cefalu M, Farmer CM, Hussey PS. Comparing quality of care in veterans affairs and non-veterans affairs settings. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(10):1631–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Trivedi AN, Matula S, Miake-Lye I, Glassman PA, Shekelle P, Asch S. Systematic review: comparison of the quality of medical care in veterans affairs and non-veterans affairs settings. Med Care. 2011;49(1):76–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the following organizations for their assistance in disseminating the survey to their membership: the Association of Perioperative Registered Nurses, the National Surgical Assistant Association, the Australian College of Perioperative Nurses, the Association of Surgical Technologists, and the Association of Surgical Assistants.

Funding

No funding was received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mara B. Antonoff.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest in association with the present study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Corsini, E.M., Luc, J.G.Y., Mitchell, K.G. et al. Predictors of the response of operating room personnel to surgeon behaviors. Surg Today 49, 927–935 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-019-01829-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-019-01829-2

Keywords

Navigation