Original ArticlesTraining Faculty in Nontechnical Skill Assessment National Guidelines on Program RequirementsHull, Louise PhD; Arora, Sonal PhD; Symons, Nicholas R. A. MSc; Jalil, Rozh MRCS; Darzi, Ara FACS; Vincent, Charles PhD; Sevdalis, Nick PhD Author Information From the Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Campus, London, United Kingdom. Reprints: Louise Hull, PhD, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Campus, Norfolk Place, London W2 1PG, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected]. Disclosure: Supported by National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), Medical Research Council (MRC)/Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), and Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's Web site (www.annalsofsurgery.com). Annals of Surgery: August 2013 - Volume 258 - Issue 2 - p 370-375 doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318279560b Buy SDC Metrics AbstractIn Brief Objective: To develop guidelines for a faculty training program in nontechnical skill assessment in surgery. Background: Nontechnical skills in the operating room are critical for patient safety. The successful integration of these skills into workplace-based assessment is dependent upon the availability of faculty who are able to teach and assess them. At present, no guidelines exist regarding the training requirements for such faculty in surgical contexts. Methods: The development of the guidelines was carried out in several stages: stage 1—a detailed literature review on current training for nontechnical skill assessors; stage 2—semistructured interviews with a multidisciplinary panel (consisting of clinicians and psychologists/human factors specialists) of experts in surgical nontechnical skills; and stage 3—interview findings fed into an Expert Consensus Panel (ECP) Delphi approach to establish consensus regarding training requirements for faculty assessing nontechnical skills in surgery. Results: The ECP agreed that training in nontechnical skill assessment should be delivered by a multidisciplinary team consisting of clinicians and psychologists/human factors specialists. The ECP reached consensus regarding who should be targeted to be trained as faculty (including proficiency and revalidation requirements). Consensus was reached on 7 essential training program content elements (including training in providing feedback/debriefing) and 8 essential methods of evaluating the effectiveness of a “train-the-trainers” program. Conclusions: This study provides evidence-based guidelines that can be used to guide the development and evaluation of programs to educate faculty in the training and assessment of nontechnical skills. Uptake of these guidelines could accelerate the development of surgical expertise required for safe and high-quality patient care. This study establishes guidelines for the training requirements for nontechnical skill assessors in surgery and provides an evidence-based framework that can be used to guide the development and evaluation of programs to educate faculty in the training and assessment of nontechnical skills. © 2013 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.