BACKGROUND: Despite the importance of feedback, the literature suggests that there is inadequate feedback in graduate medical education. OBJECTIVE: We explored barriers and facilitators that residents in anesthesiology, emergency medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, and surgery experience with giving and receiving feedback during their clinical training. METHODS: Residents from 3 geographically diverse teaching institutions were recruited to participate in focus groups in 2012. Open-ended questions prompted residents to describe their experiences with giving and receiving feedback, and discuss facilitators and barriers. Data were transcribed and analyzed using the constant comparative method associated with a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: A total of 19 residents participated in 1 of 3 focus groups. Five major themes related to feedback were identified: teacher factors, learner factors, feedback process, feedback content, and educational context. Unapproachable attendings, time pressures due to clinical work, and discomfort with giving negative feedback were cited as major barriers in the feedback process. Learner engagement in the process was a major facilitator in the feedback process. CONCLUSIONS: Residents provided insights for improving the feedback process based on their dual roles as teachers and learners. Time pressures in the learning environment may be mitigated by efforts to improve the quality of teacher-learner relationships. Forms for collecting written feedback should be augmented by faculty development to ensure meaningful use. Efforts to improve residents' comfort with giving feedback and encouraging learners to engage in the feedback process may foster an environment conducive to increasing feedback.
BACKGROUND: Despite the importance of feedback, the literature suggests that there is inadequate feedback in graduate medical education. OBJECTIVE: We explored barriers and facilitators that residents in anesthesiology, emergency medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, and surgery experience with giving and receiving feedback during their clinical training. METHODS: Residents from 3 geographically diverse teaching institutions were recruited to participate in focus groups in 2012. Open-ended questions prompted residents to describe their experiences with giving and receiving feedback, and discuss facilitators and barriers. Data were transcribed and analyzed using the constant comparative method associated with a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: A total of 19 residents participated in 1 of 3 focus groups. Five major themes related to feedback were identified: teacher factors, learner factors, feedback process, feedback content, and educational context. Unapproachable attendings, time pressures due to clinical work, and discomfort with giving negative feedback were cited as major barriers in the feedback process. Learner engagement in the process was a major facilitator in the feedback process. CONCLUSIONS: Residents provided insights for improving the feedback process based on their dual roles as teachers and learners. Time pressures in the learning environment may be mitigated by efforts to improve the quality of teacher-learner relationships. Forms for collecting written feedback should be augmented by faculty development to ensure meaningful use. Efforts to improve residents' comfort with giving feedback and encouraging learners to engage in the feedback process may foster an environment conducive to increasing feedback.
Authors: David A Rogers; Margaret L Boehler; Cathy J Schwind; Andreas H Meier; Jarrod C H Wall; Michael J Brenner Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2011-11-08 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Pim W Teunissen; Diederik A Stapel; Cees van der Vleuten; Albert Scherpbier; Klarke Boor; Fedde Scheele Journal: Acad Med Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Karen Mann; Cees van der Vleuten; Kevin Eva; Heather Armson; Ben Chesluk; Timothy Dornan; Eric Holmboe; Jocelyn Lockyer; Elaine Loney; Joan Sargeant Journal: Acad Med Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Joan Sargeant; Karen Mann; Douglas Sinclair; Cees Van der Vleuten; Job Metsemakers Journal: Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract Date: 2006-11-08 Impact factor: 3.853
Authors: Kevin W Eva; Heather Armson; Eric Holmboe; Jocelyn Lockyer; Elaine Loney; Karen Mann; Joan Sargeant Journal: Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract Date: 2011-04-06 Impact factor: 3.853
Authors: Joceline V Vu; Calista M Harbaugh; Ana C De Roo; Ben E Biesterveld; Paul G Gauger; Justin B Dimick; Gurjit Sandhu Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2019-09-03 Impact factor: 2.891
Authors: Bradley H Crotty; Melissa Anselmo; Deserae Clarke; Joann G Elmore; Linda M Famiglio; Alan Fossa; Lydia Flier; Jamie Green; Jared W Klein; Suzanne Leveille; Chen-Tan Lin; Corey Lyon; Roanne Mejilla; Matthew Moles; Rebecca A Stametz; Michelle Thompson; Jan Walker; Sigall K Bell Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2018-06