BACKGROUND: In contrast to historical feedback, which was vague or provided residents' numerical scores without clear meaning, milestone-based feedback is focused on specific knowledge, skills, and behaviors that define developmental trajectory. It was anticipated that residents would welcome the more specific and actionable feedback provided by the milestone framework, but this has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: We assessed internal medicine (IM) residents' perceptions of receiving feedback in the milestone framework, particularly assessing perception of the utility of milestone-based feedback compared to non-milestone-based feedback. METHODS: We surveyed a total of 510 IM residents from 7 institutions. Survey questions assessed resident perception of milestone feedback in identifying strengths, weaknesses, and trajectory of professional development. Postgraduate years 2 and 3 (PGY-2 and PGY-3) residents were asked to compare milestones with prior methods of feedback. RESULTS: Of 510 residents, 356 (69.8%) responded. Slightly less than half of the residents found milestone-based feedback "extremely useful" or "very useful" in identifying strengths (44%), weaknesses (43%), specific areas for improvement (45%), and appropriate education progress (48%). Few residents found such feedback "not very useful" or "not at all useful" in these domains. A total of 51% of PGY-2 and PGY-3 residents agreed that receiving milestone-based feedback was more helpful than previous forms of feedback. CONCLUSIONS: IM residents are aware of the concepts of milestones, and half of the residents surveyed found milestone feedback more helpful than previous forms of feedback. More work needs to be done to understand how milestone-based feedback could be delivered more effectively to enhance resident development.
BACKGROUND: In contrast to historical feedback, which was vague or provided residents' numerical scores without clear meaning, milestone-based feedback is focused on specific knowledge, skills, and behaviors that define developmental trajectory. It was anticipated that residents would welcome the more specific and actionable feedback provided by the milestone framework, but this has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: We assessed internal medicine (IM) residents' perceptions of receiving feedback in the milestone framework, particularly assessing perception of the utility of milestone-based feedback compared to non-milestone-based feedback. METHODS: We surveyed a total of 510 IM residents from 7 institutions. Survey questions assessed resident perception of milestone feedback in identifying strengths, weaknesses, and trajectory of professional development. Postgraduate years 2 and 3 (PGY-2 and PGY-3) residents were asked to compare milestones with prior methods of feedback. RESULTS: Of 510 residents, 356 (69.8%) responded. Slightly less than half of the residents found milestone-based feedback "extremely useful" or "very useful" in identifying strengths (44%), weaknesses (43%), specific areas for improvement (45%), and appropriate education progress (48%). Few residents found such feedback "not very useful" or "not at all useful" in these domains. A total of 51% of PGY-2 and PGY-3 residents agreed that receiving milestone-based feedback was more helpful than previous forms of feedback. CONCLUSIONS: IM residents are aware of the concepts of milestones, and half of the residents surveyed found milestone feedback more helpful than previous forms of feedback. More work needs to be done to understand how milestone-based feedback could be delivered more effectively to enhance resident development.
Authors: Michael L Green; Eva M Aagaard; Kelly J Caverzagie; Davoren A Chick; Eric Holmboe; Gregory Kane; Cynthia D Smith; William Iobst Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2009-09
Authors: Karen R Borman; Rebecca Augustine; Thomas Leibrandt; Christopher M Pezzi; John S Kukora Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2013 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.891
Authors: Eva Aagaard; Gregory C Kane; Lisa Conforti; Sarah Hood; Kelly J Caverzagie; Cynthia Smith; Davoren A Chick; Eric S Holmboe; William F Iobst Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2013-09
Authors: Kelly J Caverzagie; William F Iobst; Eva M Aagaard; Sarah Hood; Davoren A Chick; Gregory C Kane; Timothy P Brigham; Susan R Swing; Lauren B Meade; Hasan Bazari; Roger W Bush; Lynne M Kirk; Michael L Green; Kevin T Hinchey; Cynthia D Smith Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-04-02 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Christopher Nabors; Stephen J Peterson; Leanne Forman; Gary W Stallings; Arif Mumtaz; Sachin Sule; Tushar Shah; Wilbert Aronow; Lawrence Delorenzo; Dipak Chandy; Stuart G Lehrman; William H Frishman; Eric Holmboe Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2013-03
Authors: Daniel J Schumacher; Kadriye O Lewis; Ann E Burke; M Lynne Smith; Jayna B Schumacher; Mary Anne Pitman; Stephen Ludwig; Patricia J Hicks; Susan Guralnick; Robert Englander; Bradley Benson; Carol Carraccio Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2012-11-17 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Eric S Holmboe; Kenji Yamazaki; Laura Edgar; Lisa Conforti; Nicholas Yaghmour; Rebecca S Miller; Stanley J Hamstra Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2015-09
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: Anna L Waterbrook; Karen C Spear Ellinwood; T Gail Pritchard; Karen Bertels; Ariel C Johnson; Alice Min; Lisa R Stoneking Journal: Adv Med Educ Pract Date: 2018-05-04