Corrie E McDaniel1, Amit T Singh2, Jimmy B Beck3, Krista Birnie4, H Barrett Fromme5, Cherie F Ginwalla6, Elena Griego3, Marta King7, Jennifer Maniscalco8, Joanne Nazif9, Kamakshya P Patra10, Elizabeth Seelbach11, Jacqueline M Walker12, Priti Bhansali13. 1. Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle (CE McDaniel, JB Beck, and E Griego). Electronic address: corrie.mcdaniel@seattlechildrens.org. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif (AT Singh). 3. Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle (CE McDaniel, JB Beck, and E Griego). 4. Department of Pediatrics, Tufts University, Boston, Mass (K Birnie). 5. Department of Pediatrics, University of Chicago, Ill (HB Fromme). 6. Department of Pediatrics, University of California Davis, Sacramento (CF Ginwalla). 7. Department of Pediatrics, St. Louis University, Mo (M King). 8. Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Calif (J Maniscalco). 9. Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital at Montefiore, Bronx, NY (J Nazif). 10. Department of Pediatrics, West Virginia University, Morgantown (KP Patra). 11. Department of Pediatrics, University of Kentucky, Lexington (E Seelbach). 12. Department of Pediatrics, Children's Mercy, Kansas City, Mo (JM Walker). 13. Department of Pediatrics, Children's National Medical Center, Washington, DC (P Bhansali).
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Peer observation and feedback (POF) is the direct observation of an activity performed by a colleague followed by feedback with the goal of improved performance and professional development. Although well described in the education literature, the use of POF as a tool for development beyond teaching skills has not been explored. We aimed to characterize the practice of POF among pediatric hospitalists to explore the perceived benefits and barriers and to identify preferences regarding POF. METHODS: We developed a 14-item cross-sectional survey regarding divisional expectations, personal practice, perceived benefits and barriers, and preferences related to POF. We refined the survey based on expert feedback, cognitive interviews, and pilot testing, distributing the final survey to pediatric hospitalists at 12 institutions across the United States. RESULTS: Of 357 eligible participants, 198 (56%) responded, with 115 (58%) practicing in a freestanding children's hospital. Although 61% had participated in POF, less than one half (42%) reported divisional POF expectation. The most common perceived benefits of POF were identifying areas for improvement (94%) and learning about colleagues' teaching and clinical styles (94%). The greatest perceived barriers were time (51%) and discomfort with receiving feedback from peers (38%), although participation within a POF program reduced perceived barriers. Most (76%) desired formal POF programs focused on improving teaching skills (85%), clinical management (83%), and family-centered rounds (82%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of faculty desired POF, developing a supportive environment and feasible program is challenging. This study provides considerations for improving and designing POF programs.
OBJECTIVE: Peer observation and feedback (POF) is the direct observation of an activity performed by a colleague followed by feedback with the goal of improved performance and professional development. Although well described in the education literature, the use of POF as a tool for development beyond teaching skills has not been explored. We aimed to characterize the practice of POF among pediatric hospitalists to explore the perceived benefits and barriers and to identify preferences regarding POF. METHODS: We developed a 14-item cross-sectional survey regarding divisional expectations, personal practice, perceived benefits and barriers, and preferences related to POF. We refined the survey based on expert feedback, cognitive interviews, and pilot testing, distributing the final survey to pediatric hospitalists at 12 institutions across the United States. RESULTS: Of 357 eligible participants, 198 (56%) responded, with 115 (58%) practicing in a freestanding children's hospital. Although 61% had participated in POF, less than one half (42%) reported divisional POF expectation. The most common perceived benefits of POF were identifying areas for improvement (94%) and learning about colleagues' teaching and clinical styles (94%). The greatest perceived barriers were time (51%) and discomfort with receiving feedback from peers (38%), although participation within a POF program reduced perceived barriers. Most (76%) desired formal POF programs focused on improving teaching skills (85%), clinical management (83%), and family-centered rounds (82%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of faculty desired POF, developing a supportive environment and feasible program is challenging. This study provides considerations for improving and designing POF programs.
Authors: Craig Noronha; Margaret C Lo; Tanya Nikiforova; Danielle Jones; Deepa Rani Nandiwada; Tiffany I Leung; Janeen E Smith; Wei Wei Lee Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-04-26 Impact factor: 6.473