General Surgery Residents’ Perception of Feedback: We Can Do Better

Gupta, Aakanksha; Villegas, Cassandra V.; Watkins, Anthony C.; Foglia, Christopher M.; Rucinski, James; Winchell, Robert J.; Barie, Philip S.; Narayan, Mayur

doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2019.12.009

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Challenges with feedback in surgery have been previously documented within one study in a general surgery residency program, where 46% of the residents reported receiving feedback less than 20% of the time in the past year. 17 Unfortunately, this study did not assess the quality of feedback that was provided. One plausible explanation for the lower quality of feedback in DoS seen in our study is that most surgery EPAs are focused on procedures performed in the operating room (OR) and in-patient care setting, with learning in the ambulatory setting being ascribed a lower priority.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One plausible explanation for the lower quality of feedback in DoS seen in our study is that most surgery EPAs are focused on procedures performed in the operating room (OR) and in-patient care setting, with learning in the ambulatory setting being ascribed a lower priority. 18 It has also been suggested that surgery residents receive much of their feedback verbally in the intraoperative period; 17 however, there is a paucity of research on the quality and quantity of feedback in surgery outside of simulation-based interventions. In comparison, the quality and quantity of feedback provided within medicine subspecialties have been investigated in several studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploring the Quality of Narrative Feedback Provided to Residents During Ambulatory Patient Care in Medicine and Surgery

Leclair

Braund

et al. 2023

Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVES The transition to competency-based medical education (CBME) has increased the volume of residents’ assessment data; however, the quality of the narrative feedback is yet to be used as feedback-on-feedback for faculty. Our objectives were (1) to explore and compare the quality and content of narrative feedback provided to residents in medicine and surgery during ambulatory patient care and (2) to use the Deliberately Developmental Organization framework to identify strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities to improve quality of feedback within CBME. METHODS We conducted a mixed convergent methods study with residents from the Departments of Surgery (DoS; n = 7) and Medicine (DoM; n = 9) at Queen's University. We used thematic analysis and the Quality of Assessment for Learning (QuAL) tool to analyze the content and quality of narrative feedback documented in entrustable professional activities (EPAs) assessments for ambulatory care. We also examined the association between the basis of assessment, time to provide feedback, and the quality of narrative feedback. RESULTS Forty-one EPA assessments were included in the analysis. Three major themes arose from thematic analysis: Communication, Diagnostics/Management, and Next Steps. Quality of the narrative feedback varied; 46% had sufficient evidence about residents’ performance; 39% provided a suggestion for improvement; and 11% provided a connection between the suggestion and the evidence. There were significant differences between DoM and DoS in quality of feedback scores for evidence (2.1 [1.3] vs. 1.3 [1.1]; p < 0.01) and connection (0.4 [0.5] vs. 0.1 [0.3]; p = 0.04) domains of the QuAL tool. Feedback quality was not associated with the basis of assessment or time taken to provide feedback. CONCLUSION The quality of the narrative feedback provided to residents during ambulatory patient care was variable with the greatest gap in providing connections between suggestions and evidence about residents’ performance. There is a need for ongoing faculty development to improve the quality of narrative feedback provided to residents.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Quality of Narrative Feedback Provided to Residents During Ambulatory Patient Care in Medicine and Surgery

Leclair

Braund

et al. 2023

Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the traditional concept of “see one, do one, teach one” cannot be applied to the current residents, as the time spent by the current residents in procedure-based training has decreased. Studies have found that residents of all specialties spend only 6% to 21% of their total residency hours in the operating room [ 9 ]. Moreover, the currently training millennial generation leans towards training with technology through constant exposure in an environment of rapid technological advancements.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Educational Feedback in Urology Training: A Survey-Based Assessment of Trainees and Program Directors

Waisanen,

Parmar,

Iskhakov

et al. 2024

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Our objective was to evaluate current satisfaction with the feedback provided during post-graduate urological training, including the quality and frequency of feedback, with participants consisting of both trainees and program directors. Additionally, we aimed to identify areas for future improvement in resident and fellow-level urological training. Methods: Graduating residents, fellows, and program directors from accredited residency/fellowship programs in the United States were surveyed. A total of 575 surveys were sent out. Information on feedback frequency, quality, form, and satisfaction was collected using applicable multiple-choice responses and a five-point Likert scale. An open-ended question gathered suggestions for improving current feedback processes. A chi-square test of independence was used to compare the responses to individual questions. Results: Ninety-two respondents answered our survey: 22 residents, 18 fellows, 25 residency program directors (PDs), and 27 fellowship PDs. The distribution of age, race, and gender categories was not significantly different between PDs and trainees. However, there was a significant difference in their subspecialties and American Urological Association (AUA) sections. The majority of fellowship PDs, residency PDs, fellows, and residents (88 total) reported verbal feedback as the predominant method within their practice. This was followed by written (68 total), electronic (54 total), and app-based feedback (19 total). Conclusion: Our study suggests that there may be a need for ongoing improvement or standardization of feedback mechanisms in the field of urological training and highlights the perceived discrepancies between learners and educators.

show abstract

“…This could be due to better rapport, which was found to be better in less senior trainers. [14][15][16] Only around half of the trainees in this survey felt that they always sought feedback. Even smaller percentages (6%) have been reported previously.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraoperative feedback: A survey of surgical trainees’ perspective

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Intraoperative feedback can be associated with improved surgical performance. Quality feedback can reduce the time required by trainees to achieve proficiency in psychomotor skills. Operative training time has become increasingly limited, and it has become imperative to use surgical training time effectively. Aim In this survey, we assessed trainees’ perspectives of intraoperative feedback. We included several aspects of feedback including its occurrence, quality, and potential barriers. Methods All surgical trainees in a single centre were invited to complete an electronic questionnaire. Participants were anonymised. We summarised data using descriptive statistics. Results Most trainees (85%) reported they had the opportunity to share their training goals with trainers. Just under three-quarters of trainees felt they always or sometimes got timely feedback. Only half of the trainees were signposted to feedback and 23% felt feedback was not part of their department's culture. Half of the trainees did not always feel comfortable asking for feedback from their trainers stating their reasons as fear of criticism, lack of time and competing clinical commitments. Conclusion There is no denying the importance of feedback on operative performance, however, this survey shows that many of the pillars of quality feedback are poorly adhered to.

show abstract

General Surgery Residents’ Perception of Feedback: We Can Do Better

Cited by 12 publications

References 32 publications

Exploring the Quality of Narrative Feedback Provided to Residents During Ambulatory Patient Care in Medicine and Surgery

Exploring the Quality of Narrative Feedback Provided to Residents During Ambulatory Patient Care in Medicine and Surgery

Evaluation of Educational Feedback in Urology Training: A Survey-Based Assessment of Trainees and Program Directors

Intraoperative feedback: A survey of surgical trainees’ perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About