Feedback in Medical Education: A Critical Appraisal

Abstract

Objective: The objective was to review and critically appraise the medical education literature pertaining to feedback and highlight influential papers that inform our current understanding of the role of feedback in medical education.Methods: A search of the English language literature in querying Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsychINFO, PubMed, and Scopus identified 327 feedback-related papers using either quantitative (hypothesis-testing or observational investigations of educational interventions), qualitative methods (exploring important phenomena in emergency medicine [EM] education), or review methods.Two reviewers independently screened each category of publications using previously established exclusion criteria. Six reviewers then independently scored the remaining 54 publications using a qualitative, quantitative, or review paper scoring system. Each scoring system consisted of nine criteria and used parallel scoring metrics that have been previously used in critical appraisals of education research.Results: Fifty-four feedback papers (25 quantitative studies, 24 qualitative studies, five review papers) met the a priori criteria for inclusion and were reviewed. Eight quantitative studies, nine qualitative studies, and three review papers were ranked highly by the reviewers and are summarized in this article. To promote a scholarly approach to education and provide ongoing professional development for EM educators, the CORD Academy proposed a critical appraisal series to explore important, timely, relevant education topics. This inaugural installment of the CORD Academy critical appraisal series addresses the topic of feedback in medical education. Despite widespread acknowledgement of the importance of feedback in improving learner performance, both learners and educators express dissatisfaction with the quality and quantity of feedback received in the ED, and recent literature suggests that even if feedback is delivered, factors related to learner confidence, emotion, learner-educator relationship, and culture may impact the likelihood that the feedback is received, incorporated, and translated into performance improvement. [8][9][10][11][12][13] This critical appraisal applies a previously published method to search, critically appraise, and summarize the top quantitative and qualitative papers on feedback in medical education. Conclusions14 Established scoring instruments for quantitative and qualitative papers were piloted and revised as necessary for implementation in this context, and an instrument for scoring review papers was adapted from the qualitative instrument, piloted, and revised as well. The aim of this critical appraisal is to provide a summary of the top scoring feedback in medical education papers, highlight practical implications for EM educators, and suggest important next steps for future research. METHODS Article IdentificationA research librarian performed the literature search, querying Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsychINFO, PubMed, ...

A randomised controlled trial of feedback to improve patient satisfaction and consultation skills in medical students

“…Leading medical regulators, including Medical Councils in the UK and Australia, and College professional bodies have incorporated MSF into the performance review cycle for doctors [ 5 ]. Although MSF is a proven feasible, valid and reliable method to assess key competencies such as communication skills among doctors in practice [ 3 , 4 ], the users of patient feedback cite a weak evidence base [ 6 – 9 ]. In systematic reviews of trials using feedback as core interventions, concerns persisted in the variable effectiveness of feedback [ 5 , 10 ].…”

The Flipped Classroom: A Critical Appraisal

“…This review applies a previously published method to search and critically appraise the literature regarding the FC model in medical education 7,8. The objective of this appraisal was to summarize and highlight the top scoring papers in medical education regarding the FC, as well as present implications for EM educators and suggest future areas for research surrounding this important topic.…”

Communication in intensive care units and cardiac wards – A literature review and personal experiences

“…[42] Feedback should be actionable, thus related to something the receiver can change. [43] Generally, also suggest a solution or outcome. [42] Feedback should also be related to transparent performance criteria.…”