Optimising feedback for early career professionals: a scoping review and new framework

Mattick, Karen; Brennan, Nicola; Briscoe, Simon; Papoutsi, Chrysanthi; Pearson, Mark

doi:10.1111/medu.13794

Cited by 9 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This may positively impact the workplace culture. Future research could include larger implementations and evaluations of this feedback intervention to explore the impact of involving a wider group of pharmacists in giving the feedback, verify the findings in other clinical settings and explore the wider adoption and spread of this initiative; further development work to optimise the feedback intervention, 36 which might include exploring the role of interprofessional learning; and exploring the potential financial savings that might result from prescribing error prevention. Other professions and undergraduate students might also benefit from a similar intervention.…”

Section: Recommendations For Practice and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pharmacist‐led, video‐stimulated feedback to reduce prescribing errors in doctors‐in‐training: A mixed methods evaluation

Parker

Farrell

Bethune

et al. 2019

Brit J Clinical Pharma

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimsTo develop and evaluate a feasible, authentic pharmacist‐led prescribing feedback intervention for doctors‐in‐training, to reduce prescribing errors.MethodsThis was a mixed methods study. Sixteen postgraduate doctors‐in training, rotating though the surgical assessment unit of 1 UK hospital, were filmed taking a medication history with a patient and prescribing medications. Each doctor reviewed their video footage and made plans to improve their prescribing, supported by feedback from a pharmacist. Quantitative data in the form of prescribing error prevalence data were collected on 1 day per week before, during and after the intervention period (between November 2015 and March 2017). Qualitative data in the form of individual semi‐structured interviews were collected with a subset of participants, to evaluate their experience. Quantitative data were analysed using a statistical process chart and qualitative data were transcribed and analysed thematically.ResultsDuring the data collection period, 923 patient drug charts were reviewed by pharmacists who identified 1219 prescribing errors overall. Implementation of this feedback approach was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the mean number of prescribing errors, from 19.0/d to 11.7/d (estimated to equate to 38% reduction; P < .0001). Pharmacist‐led video‐stimulated prescribing feedback was feasible and positively received by participants, who appreciated the reinforcement of good practice as well as the opportunity to reflect on and improve practice.ConclusionsFeedback to doctors‐in‐training tends to be infrequent and often negative, but this feasible feedback strategy significantly reduced prescribing errors and was well received by the target audience as a supportive developmental approach.

show abstract

Section: Recommendations For Practice and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pharmacist‐led, video‐stimulated feedback to reduce prescribing errors in doctors‐in‐training: A mixed methods evaluation

Parker

Farrell

Bethune

et al. 2019

Brit J Clinical Pharma

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We included 101 studies (See Appendix for a diagram of the inclusion process) 18‐118 . On average 10.1 scoping reviews (SD = 13.1, median = 4, range 0‐42) were published annually (See Appendix ) with the most published in 2019 (n = 42; 41.6%).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first scoping review in our sample was published in 2011. Scoping reviews were featured in 13 of the 14 journals with Academic Medicine (n = 28, 27.7%), 18,24,33,35‐38,44,48,49,52,55,58,61,62,68,72,73,76,90,92,94,97,100,104,112,115,116 Medical Education (n = 18, 17.8%) 20,22,27,32,40,46,56,60,63,65‐67,77,103,108‐111 and BMC Medical Education (n = 16, 15.8%) 19,26,29,39,45,50,51,58,69,70,84,85,87,96,105,113 publishing the most. Clinical Teacher did not publish any scoping reviews during this time period.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clinical Teacher did not publish any scoping reviews during this time period. Thirty‐eight scoping reviews (37.6%) 19,26,28,34,38,40,41,44,49,51,53,58,60,62,65,66,70,72‐75,87,88,90,92,96,97,100‐102,105,106,109,110,112,117 reported funding that supported the work with nearly half (39.5%) 41,44,49,70,72,73,75,87,88,90,92,100,101,105,115 of those funded receiving public funds. All reviews synthesised journal articles, with 28.7% (n = 29) also including book chapters, grey literature, dissertations, websites, posters and conference proceedings 19,23,30,31,34,38‐40,42,51,56,57,59,61,63,64,71,75,76,88,92,93,95,99,104,106,108,114,117 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Over the last two decades, the number of scoping reviews in core medical education journals has increased by 4200%. Despite this growth, research on scoping reviews provides limited information about their nature, including how they are conducted or why medical educators undertake this knowledge synthesis type. This gap makes it difficult to know where the field stands and may hamper attempts to improve the conduct, reporting and utility of scoping reviews. Thus, this review characterises the nature of medical education scoping reviews to identify areas for improvement and highlight future research opportunities. Method The authors searched PubMed for scoping reviews published between 1/1999 and 4/2020 in 14 medical education journals. The authors extracted and summarised key bibliometric data, the rationales given for conducting a scoping review, the research questions and key reporting elements as described in the PRISMA‐ScR. Rationales and research questions were mapped to Arksey and O'Malley's reasons for conducting a scoping review. Results One hundred and one scoping reviews were included. On average, 10.1 scoping reviews (SD = 13.1, median = 4) were published annually with the most reviews published in 2019 (n = 42). Authors described multiple reasons for undertaking scoping reviews; the most prevalent being to summarise and disseminate research findings (n = 77). In 11 reviews, the rationales for the scoping review and the research questions aligned. No review addressed all elements of the PRISMA‐ScR, with few authors publishing a protocol (n = 2) or including stakeholders (n = 20). Authors identified shortcomings of scoping reviews, including lack of critical appraisal. Conclusions Scoping reviews are increasingly conducted in medical education and published by most core journals. Scoping reviews aim to map the depth and breadth of emerging topics; as such, they have the potential to play a critical role in the practice, policy and research of medical education. However, these results suggest improvements are needed for this role to be fully realised.

show abstract

“…Feedback is known to be a powerful way to increase individual learning and performance 3,4 and is typically more effective when baseline performance is low, 4 such as in early postgraduate training. We recently published a Feedback Framework, designed for early‐career professionals such as postgraduate medical trainees 5 . Based on feedback intervention theory, 6 the Feedback Framework highlights the points that trainees may be more easily disheartened than senior colleagues by feedback without appropriate support, may not have established support networks and therefore, may need additional help to maximise the benefit to be derived from feedback, may find feedback hard to interpret, and may have dual goals of training and practice, which may be in tension.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%