Objectives: Effective feedback is critical to medical education. Little is known about emergency medicine (EM) attending and resident physician perceptions of feedback. The focus of this study was to examine perceptions of the educational feedback that attending physicians give to residents in the clinical environment of the emergency department (ED). The authors compared attending and resident satisfaction with real-time feedback and hypothesized that the two groups would report different overall satisfaction with the feedback they currently give and receive in the ED.Methods: This observational study surveyed attending and resident physicians at 17 EM residency programs through web-based surveys. The primary outcome was overall satisfaction with feedback in the ED, ranked on a 10-point scale. Additional survey items addressed specific aspects of feedback. Responses were compared using a linear generalized estimating equation (GEE) model for overall satisfaction, a logistic GEE model for dichotomized responses, and an ordinal logistic GEE model for ordinal responses.Results: Three hundred seventy-three of 525 (71%) attending physicians and 356 of 596 (60%) residents completed the survey. Attending physicians were more satisfied with overall feedback (mean score 5.97 vs. 5.29, p < 0.001) and with timeliness of feedback (odds ratio [OR] = 1.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23 to 2.00; p < 0.001) than residents. Attending physicians were also more likely to rate the quality of feedback as very good or excellent for positive feedback, constructive feedback, feedback on procedures, documentation, management of ED flow, and evidence-based decision-making. Attending physicians reported time constraints as the top obstacle to giving feedback and were more likely than residents to report that feedback is usually attending initiated (OR = 7.09, 95% CI = 3.53 to 14.31; p < 0.001).Conclusions: Attending physician satisfaction with the quality, timeliness, and frequency of feedback given is higher than resident physician satisfaction with feedback received. Attending and resident physicians have differing perceptions of who initiates feedback and how long it takes to provide effective feedback. Knowledge of these differences in perceptions about feedback may be used to direct future educational efforts to improve feedback in the ED.ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2009; 16:S76-S81 ª

No abstract

No abstract

Many residency applicants were asked potentially illegal questions. Developing a formal interview code of conduct targeting both applicants and programs may be necessary to address the potential flaws in the resident selection process.

The conference requirements that were logical and helpful years ago may not be logical or helpful now. Technologies available to educators have changed, the amount of material to cover has grown, and online on-demand education has grown even more. We believe that flexibility is needed to customize EM education to suit individual resident and individual program needs, to capitalize on regional and national resources when local resources are limited, to innovate, and to analyze and evaluate interventions with an eye toward outcomes.

No abstract

Two-thirds of applicants reported being asked potentially illegal questions. More women than men reported receiving questions about marital status or family planning. Potentially illegal questions negatively influence how applicants perceive and rank programs. A formal interview code of conduct or interviewer training could help to address these issues.

Objectives Effective real-time feedback is critical to medical education. This study tested the hypothesis that an educational intervention related to feedback would improve emergency medicine (EM) faculty and resident physician satisfaction with feedback. Methods This was a cluster-randomized, controlled study of 15 EM residency programs in 2007-2008. An educational intervention was created that combined a feedback curriculum with a card system designed to promote timely, effective feedback. Sites were randomized either to receive the intervention or to continue their current feedback method. All participants completed a web-based survey before and after the intervention period. The primary outcome was overall feedback satisfaction on a 10-point scale. Additional items addressed specific aspects of feedback. Responses were compared using a generalized estimating equations model, adjusting for confounders and baseline differences between groups. The study was designed to achieve at least 80% power to detect a one-point difference in overall satisfaction (α = 0.05). Results Response rates for pre- and post-intervention surveys were 65.9% and 47.3% (faculty), and 64.7% and 56.9% (residents). Residents in the intervention group reported a mean overall increase in feedback satisfaction scores compared to those in the control group (mean increase 0.96 points, SE ± 0.44, p = 0.03), and significantly higher satisfaction with the quality, amount, and timeliness of feedback. There were no significant differences in mean scores for overall and specific aspects of satisfaction between the faculty physician intervention and control groups. Conclusions An intervention designed to improve real-time feedback in the ED resulted in higher resident satisfaction with feedback received, but did not affect faculty satisfaction with the feedback given.