How do Trainers Think They Should Train? A Qualitative Study Investigating the Training Practices That General Surgical Consultants Value

• Trainers emphasize trainee responsibility whilst describing their own powerlessness. • Training funding exists but trainers lack knowledge of how to access or control it. • Positive trainer-trainee relationships valued but structurally difficult to maintain. • Current training produces “reasonable” consultants, reducing urgency for reform. • Time scarcity and lack of recognition make training a systemically low priority. The role of the surgical trainer is critical in the development and training of surgeons of the future. Despite this, the majority of research in this area focuses on the views of the trainees. There is very little, or in some cases no research, into which practices make good surgical training, or what good modern surgical training looks like according to the trainers. This research looked to fill this gap. A constructivist exploratory approach was used. Semi structured interviews were conducted. Interviews continued until it was felt that sufficient information power had been achieved. Reflective thematic analysis was then applied using Braun and Clarke's 6 step technique. Ninety-minute interviews were conducted over Microsoft teams, over a 3-month period General Surgery Consultants who self-identified as trainers from Yorkshire and Humber School of Surgery were recruited on a voluntary basis. Four main themes were identified, “Trainees are responsible for their own training,” “The best training happens in positive relationships,” “Learning to operate is the easy bit” and “Trainers are not empowered to train.” Participants emphasized trainee responsibility for proactive learning whilst simultaneously describing structural constraints limiting their capacity to deliver desired training. This tension may reflect broader contradictions in how training responsibilities are understood within current systems. Participants identified resource limitations, particularly time and access to training funding, as barriers beyond their control. However, perceptions that training produces “reasonable” consultants may reduce urgency for systemic change. Findings suggest that meaningful improvement in surgical training may require both institutional changes—such as formal recognition and resourcing of training activities—and collective advocacy by trainers themselves to address structural barriers. Given this study's single-region focus, further research across multiple regions and specialties would strengthen understanding of whether these perspectives reflect wider patterns in UK surgical training.