BACKGROUND: Physicians play a crucial role in teaching residents in clinical practice. Feedback on their teaching performance to support this role needs to be provided in a carefully designed and constructive way. AIMS: We investigated an evaluation system for evaluating supervisors and providing formative feedback. METHOD: In a design based research approach, the 'Evaluation and Feedback For Effective Clinical Teaching System' (EFFECT-S) was examined by conducting semi-structured interviews with residents and supervisors of five departments in five different hospitals about feedback conditions, acceptance and its effects. Interviews were analysed by three researchers, using qualitative research software (ATLAS-Ti). RESULTS: Principles and characteristics of the design are supported by evaluating EFFECT-S. All steps of EFFECT-S appear necessary. A new step, team evaluation, was added. Supervisors perceived the feedback as instructive; residents felt capable of providing feedback. Creating safety and honesty require different actions for residents and supervisors. Outcomes include awareness of clinical teaching, residents learning feedback skills, reduced hierarchy and an improved learning climate. CONCLUSIONS: EFFECT-S appeared useful for evaluating supervisors. Key mechanism was creating a safe environment for residents to provide honest and constructive feedback. Residents learned providing feedback, being part of the CanMEDS and ACGME competencies of medical education programmes.
BACKGROUND: Physicians play a crucial role in teaching residents in clinical practice. Feedback on their teaching performance to support this role needs to be provided in a carefully designed and constructive way. AIMS: We investigated an evaluation system for evaluating supervisors and providing formative feedback. METHOD: In a design based research approach, the 'Evaluation and Feedback For Effective Clinical Teaching System' (EFFECT-S) was examined by conducting semi-structured interviews with residents and supervisors of five departments in five different hospitals about feedback conditions, acceptance and its effects. Interviews were analysed by three researchers, using qualitative research software (ATLAS-Ti). RESULTS: Principles and characteristics of the design are supported by evaluating EFFECT-S. All steps of EFFECT-S appear necessary. A new step, team evaluation, was added. Supervisors perceived the feedback as instructive; residents felt capable of providing feedback. Creating safety and honesty require different actions for residents and supervisors. Outcomes include awareness of clinical teaching, residents learning feedback skills, reduced hierarchy and an improved learning climate. CONCLUSIONS: EFFECT-S appeared useful for evaluating supervisors. Key mechanism was creating a safe environment for residents to provide honest and constructive feedback. Residents learned providing feedback, being part of the CanMEDS and ACGME competencies of medical education programmes.
Authors: Marrigje E Duitsman; Marije van Braak; Wyke Stommel; Marianne Ten Kate-Booij; Jacqueline de Graaf; Cornelia R M G Fluit; Debbie A D C Jaarsma Journal: Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 3.853
Authors: Paul L P Brand; H Jeroen Rosingh; Maarten A C Meijssen; Ingrid M Nijholt; Saskia Dünnwald; Jelle Prins; Johanna Schönrock-Adema Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2019-12-03 Impact factor: 2.463