Interactive faculty development seminars improve the quality of written feedback in ambulatory teaching

Abstract

We performed a pre-post study of the impact of three 90-minute faculty development workshops on written feedback from encounters during an ambulatory internal medicine clerkship. We coded 47 encounters before and 43 after the workshops, involving 9 preceptors and 44 third-year students, using qualitative and semiquantitative methods. Postworkshop, the mean number of feedback statements increased from 2.8 to 3.6 statements ( P = .06); specific ( P = .04), formative ( P = .03), and student skills feedback ( P = .01) increased, but attitudinal ( P = .13) and corrective feedback did not ( P = .41). Brief, interactive, faculty development workshops may refine written feedback, resulting in more formative specific written feedback comments. While the amount and quality of verbal feedback improved and some aspects of preceptor self-perception improved, learner satisfaction remained unchanged. Building on that work, we performed the current study to characterize the content of written feedback in the outpatient clinic, and discern whether the amount and quality of written feedback also could be improved after our faculty development program. METHODSWe studied the effect of an ambulatory faculty development workshop on written feedback during a third-year outpatient medicine clerkship. Our intervention consisted of three 90-minute ambulatory faculty development seminars scheduled 1 week apart. The seminars were 30-minute minilectures, an interactive discussion about a videotaped simulated teaching encounter, and role-plays. The first session focused on the One-Minute Preceptor , and ambulatory teaching goals in general, the second on methods of evaluation in the ambulatory setting, and the third on the characteristics of quality feedback and how to provide it. During the third session, a specific 20-minute block of instruction covering effective written feedback was provided. We stressed the need to be specific and interactively discussed improving written feedback with suboptimal feedback examples.Routinely during this clerkship, preceptors fill out 3 ″ × 5 ″ cards rating student performance after each encounter. Written feedback for 3 months before and after faculty participation in an ambulatory teaching program was compared. After each encounter, teachers and learners were also asked several Likert-type questions on the amount and quality of feedback provided. Survey questions did not differentiate between verbal and written feedback. This study was performed in conjunction with assessment of verbal

Assessment and feedback to facilitate self-directed learning in clinical practice of Midwifery students

“…As described in the literature, it was generally difficult for the students to collect feedback, on general competencies in particular (Heron 2008). Furthermore, although a balance between positive and negative feedback is generally recommended (Salerno et al 2003), the students indicated that they suffered when they received negative feedback regularly, saying it undermined their self-confidence with a negative impact on reflective writing. In the literature we found different opinions on this topic.…”

Written feedback and continuity of learning in a geographically distributed medical education program

“…Relatively little emphasis has been placed on investigating the efficacy of the openended, often underutilised, written feedback elements embedded in such instruments (Lye et al 2001;Salerno et al 2003;Jolly & Boud 2013 (Salerno et al 2003) and as a means of documenting specific clinical learning strengths and difficulties (Lye et al 2001). There may be opportunities to further develop these textual comments to communicate important professional development information for students and clinical supervisors.…”

The Quality of Written Feedback by Attendings of Internal Medicine Residents

“…3 Previous studies have shown that feedback tends to be nonspecific, is not provided in a timely manner, and does not provide learners with sufficient information to improve their performance. [6][7][8][9] Residents and attendings frequently disagree on the quality and quantity of feedback provided, [10][11][12][13][14][15] with the result that feedback is commonly cited as needing improvement. 16,17 Several studies have examined feedback.…”