Defining Success as a Surgeon
Nikhil Kapur, Anne-Lise D. D’Angelo, Carissa Besonen, Anna Haug, Emily Flaherty, Mohamed Baloul, Alexander R. Cortez, Jonathan D. D’AngeloObjective:
The aim of this research was to investigate how surgeons define success on their own terms.
Introduction:
Recent research on careerism in academic surgery indicated that academic advancement through titles is often viewed as a metric of success that is both flawed and biased. Amid such research and increasing rates of burnout and specious productivity practices, there have been calls for broader definitions of success as a surgeon.
Methods:
This was a secondary analysis of a data set in which 31 surgeons (29% female) at 2 hospitals participated in 1-hour semi-structured interviews. Researchers applied inductive thematic coding and defined and applied codes related to how surgeons discussed success and associated aspects. Codes were refined in an iterative process and coalesced into overarching themes.
Results:
When surgeons were asked to define success, they often explicitly or tacitly noted that there were 2 potential narratives regarding success—a traditional narrative and a personal narrative. The traditional narrative emphasized that success was determined by the achievement of particular outcomes and associated accolades, whereas the personal narrative determined success by evaluation of interpersonal relationships and balance.
Conclusions:
Our research provides a broad and empirical understanding of how surgeons can view success. In acknowledging a personal narrative of success that may stand with the traditional narrative, we provide a framework that will allow a more nuanced discussion of success that may motivate, prevent burnout, enhance patient care, and allow surgeons to flourish.