Can You Hear Me Now? Helping Faculty Improve Feedback Exchange for Internal Medicine Subspecialty Fellows

Ananthakrishnan, Sonia; Eyllon, Mara; Noronha, Craig

doi:10.15766/mep_2374-8265.11099

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although there are several published curricula on how faculty can provide effective feedback to medical trainees ( 1 , 10 , 16 – 21 ), there is a dearth of evidence on methods to improve trainee feedback of faculty. Pelsang and Smith have previously described group evaluation of faculty at the residency level ( 22 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Better Together: Development and Implementation of Fellow Group Evaluations of Faculty

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background High-quality trainee evaluations of faculty are essential for meaningful faculty development and for improving the clinical learning environment. However, concerns about anonymity can limit usefulness of trainee evaluations, particularly in smaller programs, such as subspecialty fellowships. Objective To develop and implement a fellow-driven group evaluation process to enhance trainee confidentiality and generate high-quality feedback for pulmonary and critical care medicine faculty. Methods A novel process was developed for faculty evaluation and feedback consisting of quarterly, structured, fellow-led group evaluation sessions focused on collecting confidential, behaviorally oriented, actionable feedback for faculty. Upper-year fellow moderators utilized a standard format to structure discussion, generating strengths and areas for growth for each faculty member while explicitly asking for input from fellows with divergent perspectives. Moderators compiled anonymized session notes for the program director, who delivered feedback to individual faculty. After the first six sessions, an electronic survey was distributed to assess fellow perceptions of the group evaluation model. Results Thirty-seven faculty members were evaluated in 11 group sessions over 42 months. Fellows rated group-generated feedback as more confidential, more specific, more accurate, more efficient, more actionable, and less biased when compared with individual written evaluations ( P < 0.01 for all categories). Conclusion The authors successfully developed and implemented a process for fellow-led group evaluation of faculty, designed to facilitate fellow confidentiality and enrich the quality of feedback. Fellows preferred the group evaluation process and perceived group-generated feedback more favorably compared with individual written evaluations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Better Together: Development and Implementation of Fellow Group Evaluations of Faculty

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

More specific feedback: why “confidence” in feedback is too ambiguous

Uetz,

Ananthakrishnan,

Tulsky

et al. 2023

Postgraduate Medical Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High quality feedback should be delivered in a timely manner, based on specific direct observation, and formulated to be actionable on the part of the trainee. Utilizing “confidence” as a point of feedback does not meet these criteria given the ambiguity and lack of actionable steps towards improvement. “Confidence”-based feedback makes a judgment about the trainee’s internal state leading to potentially gender or culturally biased feedback. There is a risk of emotional harm for trainees when it is integrated into feedback and it is unclear if there is a role for the use of “confidence” in medical education. We are calling for a moratorium on the utilization of the word “confidence” in feedback in medical education until further studies are performed to assess its potential place. At this time, educators should refrain from “confidence”-based feedback and shift the focus towards more specific, actionable, behavioral-based feedback.

show abstract

Can You Hear Me Now? Helping Faculty Improve Feedback Exchange for Internal Medicine Subspecialty Fellows

Cited by 2 publications

References 1 publication

Better Together: Development and Implementation of Fellow Group Evaluations of Faculty

Better Together: Development and Implementation of Fellow Group Evaluations of Faculty

More specific feedback: why “confidence” in feedback is too ambiguous

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About