INTRODUCTION: Residents benefit from regular, high quality feedback on all CanMEDS roles during their training. However, feedback mostly concerns Medical Expert, leaving the other roles behind. A feedback system was developed to guide supervisors in providing feedback on CanMEDS roles. We analyzed whether feedback was provided on the intended roles and explored differences in quality of written feedback. METHODS: In the feedback system, CanMEDS roles were assigned to five authentic situations: Patient Encounter, Morning Report, On-call, CAT, and Oral Presentation. Quality of feedback was operationalized as specificity and inclusion of strengths and improvement points. Differences in specificity between roles were tested with Mann-Whitney U tests with a Bonferroni correction (α = 0.003). RESULTS: Supervisors (n = 126) provided residents (n = 120) with feedback (591 times). Feedback was provided on the intended roles, most frequently on Scholar (78%) and Communicator (71%); least on Manager (47%), and Collaborator (56%). Strengths (78%) were mentioned more frequently than improvement points (52%), which were lacking in 40% of the feedback on Manager, Professional, and Collaborator. Feedback on Scholar was more frequently (p = 0.000) and on Reflective Professional was less frequently (p = 0.003) specific. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Assigning roles to authentic situations guides supervisors in providing feedback on different CanMEDS roles. We recommend additional supervisor training on how to observe and evaluate the roles.
INTRODUCTION: Residents benefit from regular, high quality feedback on all CanMEDS roles during their training. However, feedback mostly concerns Medical Expert, leaving the other roles behind. A feedback system was developed to guide supervisors in providing feedback on CanMEDS roles. We analyzed whether feedback was provided on the intended roles and explored differences in quality of written feedback. METHODS: In the feedback system, CanMEDS roles were assigned to five authentic situations: Patient Encounter, Morning Report, On-call, CAT, and Oral Presentation. Quality of feedback was operationalized as specificity and inclusion of strengths and improvement points. Differences in specificity between roles were tested with Mann-Whitney U tests with a Bonferroni correction (α = 0.003). RESULTS: Supervisors (n = 126) provided residents (n = 120) with feedback (591 times). Feedback was provided on the intended roles, most frequently on Scholar (78%) and Communicator (71%); least on Manager (47%), and Collaborator (56%). Strengths (78%) were mentioned more frequently than improvement points (52%), which were lacking in 40% of the feedback on Manager, Professional, and Collaborator. Feedback on Scholar was more frequently (p = 0.000) and on Reflective Professional was less frequently (p = 0.003) specific. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Assigning roles to authentic situations guides supervisors in providing feedback on different CanMEDS roles. We recommend additional supervisor training on how to observe and evaluate the roles.