BACKGROUND: Feedback is increasingly seen as a collaborative conversation between supervisors and learners, where learners are actively and reflectively engaged with feedback and use it to improve. Based on this, and through earlier research, we developed an evidence- and theory-informed, 4-phase model for facilitating feedback and practice improvement-the R2C2 model (relationship, reaction, content, coaching). OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to explore the utility and acceptability of the R2C2 model in residency education, specifically for engaging residents in their feedback and in using it to improve, as well as the factors influencing its use. METHODS: This qualitative study used the principles of design research. We recruited residents and their supervisors in 2 programs, internal medicine and pediatrics. We prepared supervisors to use the R2C2 model during their regular midrotation and/or end-of-rotation feedback sessions with participating residents to discuss their progress and assessment reports. We conducted debriefing interviews with supervisors and residents after each session. We analyzed transcripts as a team using template and content analysis. RESULTS: Of 61 residents, 7 residents (11%) participated with their supervisors (n = 5). Schedules and sensitivity to feedback prevented broader enrollment. Supervisors found the structured R2C2 format useful. Residents and supervisors reported that the coaching phase was novel and helpful, and that the R2C2 model engaged both groups in collaborative, reflective, goal-oriented feedback discussions. CONCLUSIONS: Participants found that using the R2C2 model enabled meaningful feedback conversations, identification of goals for improvement, and development of strategies to meet those goals.
BACKGROUND: Feedback is increasingly seen as a collaborative conversation between supervisors and learners, where learners are actively and reflectively engaged with feedback and use it to improve. Based on this, and through earlier research, we developed an evidence- and theory-informed, 4-phase model for facilitating feedback and practice improvement-the R2C2 model (relationship, reaction, content, coaching). OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to explore the utility and acceptability of the R2C2 model in residency education, specifically for engaging residents in their feedback and in using it to improve, as well as the factors influencing its use. METHODS: This qualitative study used the principles of design research. We recruited residents and their supervisors in 2 programs, internal medicine and pediatrics. We prepared supervisors to use the R2C2 model during their regular midrotation and/or end-of-rotation feedback sessions with participating residents to discuss their progress and assessment reports. We conducted debriefing interviews with supervisors and residents after each session. We analyzed transcripts as a team using template and content analysis. RESULTS: Of 61 residents, 7 residents (11%) participated with their supervisors (n = 5). Schedules and sensitivity to feedback prevented broader enrollment. Supervisors found the structured R2C2 format useful. Residents and supervisors reported that the coaching phase was novel and helpful, and that the R2C2 model engaged both groups in collaborative, reflective, goal-oriented feedback discussions. CONCLUSIONS:Participants found that using the R2C2 model enabled meaningful feedback conversations, identification of goals for improvement, and development of strategies to meet those goals.
Authors: C P M van der Vleuten; L W T Schuwirth; E W Driessen; J Dijkstra; D Tigelaar; L K J Baartman; J van Tartwijk Journal: Med Teach Date: 2012 Impact factor: 3.650
Authors: Joan Sargeant; Heather Armson; Ben Chesluk; Timothy Dornan; Kevin Eva; Eric Holmboe; Jocelyn Lockyer; Elaine Loney; Karen Mann; Cees van der Vleuten Journal: Acad Med Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Joan Sargeant; Jocelyn Lockyer; Karen Mann; Eric Holmboe; Ivan Silver; Heather Armson; Erik Driessen; Tanya MacLeod; Wendy Yen; Kathryn Ross; Mary Power Journal: Acad Med Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Joan Sargeant; Kevin W Eva; Heather Armson; Ben Chesluk; Tim Dornan; Eric Holmboe; Jocelyn M Lockyer; Elaine Loney; Karen V Mann; Cees P M van der Vleuten Journal: Med Educ Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 6.251
Authors: Jamie C Brehaut; Heather L Colquhoun; Kevin W Eva; Kelly Carroll; Anne Sales; Susan Michie; Noah Ivers; Jeremy M Grimshaw Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jocelyn Lockyer; Heather Armson; Karen D Könings; Rachelle C W Lee-Krueger; Amanda Roze des Ordons; Subha Ramani; Jessica Trier; Mary Grace Zetkulic; Joan Sargeant Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2020-02