Triangulation of written assessments from patients, teachers and students: Useful for students and teachers?

Gran, Sarah Frandsen; Brænd, Anja Maria; Lindbæk, Morten

doi:10.3109/0142159x.2010.528808

Cited by 12 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In our study, some students tended to underestimate their own performance, which is alignment with previous studies [ 4 , 43 ]. The patients’ scoring in the PFCP questionnaire were generally higher than the students’ own scoring, which has also been found in previous studies [ 4 , 23 ]. In general, the clinical supervisors’ scores were also often slightly higher than the students’ own scoring, which has been described in previous studies as well [ 4 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…Only a few studies were found where different groups of participants used the same feedback questionnaire or evaluation form to provide feedback to a medical student about a specific encounter [ 21 , 22 ]. Previous studies in which medical students receive MSF are usually based on different questionnaires and evaluation forms embedded in different teaching and learning programmes [ 4 , 19 , 23 , 24 ]. This means that the feedback provided is usually anonymous, delayed and provided after numerous patient encounters [ 4 , 17 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multisource feedback in medical students’ workplace learning in primary health care

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In medical students’ workplace learning, feedback is important for effective learning regarding communication and clinical skills. The provision of multisource feedback (MSF) in clinical practice with focus on the patient’s perspective is rarely addressed in the literature. The overall objective was to explore the experience of MSF in medical students’ clinical learning in primary healthcare (PHC). Methods In the study, patients provided feedback by use of the Patient Feedback in Clinical Practice (PFCP) questionnaire. By use of adapted PFCP questionnaire versions peers and clinical supervisors provided feedback and students performed a self-evaluation. The MSF learning activity was evaluated using surveys (4-point Likert scale/open-ended questions), (students (n = 26), peers (n = 9) and clinical supervisors (n = 7)). Data were analysed using descriptive and qualitative content analysis. Results Results (mean 4-point Likert scale) from participants evaluation of the MSF learning activity visualises the value of feedback in terms of patient-centred communication (students 3.50, peers 2.44 and clinical supervisors 3.57), guidance for further training (students 3.14, peers 2.89 and clinical supervisors 3.00) and clarification of pedagogical assignment (students 3.14, peers 2.89 and clinical supervisors 3.00). Thematic analysis of participants’ free-text answers in the evaluation surveys resulted in three themes: (1) applicability of the MSF, (2) MSF – collaborative learning process and (3) MSF as a facilitator in students’ clinical skills development. The participants experienced that the written MSF provided multi-facetted perspectives, which contributed to students’ and peers’ clinical and communication learning. MSF experience also enhanced clinical supervisors’ feedback regarding communication skills, targeting the supervisors’ pedagogical assignment. Conclusion Our findings indicate that MSF provided directly after a patient encounter, using the PFCP questionnaire as feedback provider, could be an adequate learning activity for medical students’ workplace learning. The MSF, provided through the PFCP questionnaire, was experienced to neutralise and operationalise the provision of concrete feedback, facilitating peers’ learning and clinical supervisors’ tuition. The results visualise the importance of patients in MSF, as a valuable resource in students’ workplace learning. Our study implies that this learning activity could be an applicable tool to facilitate learning and pedagogic development in clinical education in PHC.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multisource feedback in medical students’ workplace learning in primary health care

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Feedback from patients has also been shown to be useful, although most ratings and comments received are positive and complimentary, as we have observed [37-39]. Receiving feedback directly from patients is also likely to increase students’ awareness of the patients’ perspective on illness [40]. There is little work on the use of administrators in assessing medical students, but we believe that including their opinions is important as it is fairly simple to do and allows observations on issues such as absence, lateness and respect for non-medical staff.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

“Who writes what?” Using written comments in team-based assessment to better understand medical student performance: a mixed-methods study

White

Sharma

2012

BMC Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundObservation of the performance of medical students in the clinical environment is a key part of assessment and learning. To date, few authors have examined written comments provided to students and considered what aspects of observed performance they represent. The aim of this study was to examine the quantity and quality of written comments provided to medical students by different assessors using a team-based model of assessment, and to determine the aspects of medical student performance on which different assessors provide comments.MethodsMedical students on a 7-week General Surgery & Anesthesiology clerkship received written comments on ‘Areas of Excellence’ and ‘Areas for Improvement’ from physicians, residents, nurses, patients, peers and administrators. Mixed-methods were used to analyze the quality and quantity of comments provided and to generate a conceptual framework of observed student performance.Results1,068 assessors and 127 peers provided 2,988 written comments for 127 students, a median of 188 words per student divided into 26 “Areas of Excellence” and 5 “Areas for Improvement”. Physicians provided the most comments (918), followed by patients (692) and peers (586); administrators provided the fewest (91). The conceptual framework generated contained four major domains: ‘Student as Physician-in-Training’, ‘Student as Learner’, ‘Student as Team Member’, and ‘Student as Person.’ConclusionsA wide range of observed medical student performance is recorded in written comments provided by members of the surgical healthcare team. Different groups of assessors provide comments on different aspects of student performance, suggesting that comments provided from a single viewpoint may potentially under-represent or overlook some areas of student performance. We hope that the framework presented here can serve as a basis to better understand what medical students do every day, and how they are perceived by those with whom they work.

show abstract

“…[ 10 ] When exploring the perceived usefulness of the tool, we found that patients’ evaluations increased students' awareness of the patient perspective, and a majority of the students considered the triangulated written feedback beneficial, although time-consuming. [ 12 ] The teachers’ attitudes to the tool strongly influenced the students’ views on how useful StudentPEP was. [ 12 ] The faculty thereafter decided to simplify the tool by not requiring the separate patient survey, but give priority to the five mandatory observations with written feedback from patients, students, and teachers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[ 12 ] The teachers’ attitudes to the tool strongly influenced the students’ views on how useful StudentPEP was. [ 12 ] The faculty thereafter decided to simplify the tool by not requiring the separate patient survey, but give priority to the five mandatory observations with written feedback from patients, students, and teachers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

General practitioners’ and students’ experiences with feedback during a six-week clerkship in general practice: a qualitative study

Gran

Brænd

Lindbæk

et al. 2016

Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveFeedback may be scarce and unsystematic during students' clerkship periods. We wanted to explore general practitioners' (GPs) and medical students' experiences with giving and receiving supervision and feedback during a clerkship in general practice, with a focus on their experiences with using a structured tool (StudentPEP) to facilitate feedback and supervision.DesignQualitative study.SettingTeachers and students from a six-week clerkship in general practice for fifth year medical students were interviewed in two student and two teacher focus groups.Subjects21 GPs and nine medical students.ResultsWe found that GPs first supported students' development in the familiarization phase by exploring the students' expectations and competency level. When mutual trust had been established through the familiarization phase GPs encouraged students to conduct their own consultations while being available for supervision and feedback. Both students and GPs emphasized that good feedback promoting students' professional development was timely, constructive, supportive, and focused on ways to improve. Among the challenges GPs mentioned were giving feedback on behavioral issues such as body language and insensitive use of electronic devices during consultations or if the student was very insecure, passive, and reluctant to take action or lacked social or language skills. While some GPs experienced StudentPEP as time-consuming and unnecessary, others argued that the tool promoted feedback and learning through mandatory observations and structured questions.ConclusionMutual trust builds a learning environment in which supervision and feedback may be given during students' clerkship in general practice. Structured tools may promote feedback, reflection and learning. Key PointsObserving the teacher and being supervised are essential components of Medical students' learning during general practice clerkships.Teachers and students build mutual trust in the familiarization phase.Good feedback is based on observations, is timely, encouraging, and instructive.StudentPEP may create an arena for structured feedback and reflection.

show abstract

Triangulation of written assessments from patients, teachers and students: Useful for students and teachers?

Cited by 12 publications

References 13 publications

Multisource feedback in medical students’ workplace learning in primary health care

Multisource feedback in medical students’ workplace learning in primary health care

“Who writes what?” Using written comments in team-based assessment to better understand medical student performance: a mixed-methods study

General practitioners’ and students’ experiences with feedback during a six-week clerkship in general practice: a qualitative study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About