BACKGROUND: Peer feedback is increasingly being used by residency programs to provide an added dimension to the assessment process. Studies show that peer feedback is useful, uniquely informative, and reliable compared to other types of assessments. Potential barriers to implementation include insufficient training/preparation, negative consequences for working relationships, and a perceived lack of benefit. OBJECTIVE: We explored the perceptions of residents involved in peer-to-peer feedback, focusing on factors that influence accuracy, usefulness, and application of the information. METHODS: Family medicine residents at the University of Michigan who were piloting an online peer assessment tool completed a brief survey to offer researchers insight into the peer feedback process. Focus groups were conducted to explore residents' perceptions that are most likely to affect giving and receiving peer feedback. RESULTS: Survey responses were provided by 28 of 30 residents (93%). Responses showed that peer feedback provided useful (89%, 25 of 28) and unique (89%, 24 of 27) information, yet only 59% (16 of 27) reported that it benefited their training. Focus group participants included 21 of 29 eligible residents (72%). Approaches to improve residents' ability to give and accept feedback included preparatory training, clearly defined goals, standardization, fewer and more qualitatively oriented encounters, 1-on-1 delivery, immediacy of timing, and cultivation of a feedback culture. CONCLUSIONS: Residents perceived feedback as important and offered actionable suggestions to enhance accuracy, usefulness, and application of the information shared. The findings can be used to inform residency programs that are interested in creating a meaningful peer feedback process.
BACKGROUND: Peer feedback is increasingly being used by residency programs to provide an added dimension to the assessment process. Studies show that peer feedback is useful, uniquely informative, and reliable compared to other types of assessments. Potential barriers to implementation include insufficient training/preparation, negative consequences for working relationships, and a perceived lack of benefit. OBJECTIVE: We explored the perceptions of residents involved in peer-to-peer feedback, focusing on factors that influence accuracy, usefulness, and application of the information. METHODS: Family medicine residents at the University of Michigan who were piloting an online peer assessment tool completed a brief survey to offer researchers insight into the peer feedback process. Focus groups were conducted to explore residents' perceptions that are most likely to affect giving and receiving peer feedback. RESULTS: Survey responses were provided by 28 of 30 residents (93%). Responses showed that peer feedback provided useful (89%, 25 of 28) and unique (89%, 24 of 27) information, yet only 59% (16 of 27) reported that it benefited their training. Focus group participants included 21 of 29 eligible residents (72%). Approaches to improve residents' ability to give and accept feedback included preparatory training, clearly defined goals, standardization, fewer and more qualitatively oriented encounters, 1-on-1 delivery, immediacy of timing, and cultivation of a feedback culture. CONCLUSIONS: Residents perceived feedback as important and offered actionable suggestions to enhance accuracy, usefulness, and application of the information shared. The findings can be used to inform residency programs that are interested in creating a meaningful peer feedback process.
Authors: Anne C Nofziger; Elizabeth H Naumburg; Barbara J Davis; Christopher J Mooney; Ronald M Epstein Journal: Acad Med Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Marjo J M Maas; Dominique M A Sluijsmans; Philip J van der Wees; Yvonne F Heerkens; Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden; Cees P M van der Vleuten Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2014-06-13 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Linda Myerholtz; Hannah M Baker; Emily M Hawes; Mallory McClester Brown; Catherine Coe; Lisa K Rollins; Cristen P Page Journal: PRiMER Date: 2022-04-21
Authors: Diana E Stewart; Bich N Dang; Barbara Trautner; Cecilia Cai; Sergio Torres; Teri Turner Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-08-21 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jaideep S Talwalkar; Auguste H Fortin; Laura J Morrison; Alan Kliger; David I Rosenthal; Tanya Murtha; Matthew S Ellman Journal: MedEdPORTAL Date: 2021-05-27