Stefan Nasir1, Caisa Öster2, Mia Ramklint2. 1. Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. stefan.nasir@neuro.uu.se. 2. Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Few studies report about the feedback students receive in undergraduate psychiatry training. The aim of this study was to evaluate an effort to optimize feedback to medical students during rotations in psychiatry. METHODS: A structured feedback tool was constructed and introduced during psychiatric rotations. At the end of each week during 3 weeks of clinical psychiatry training, 86 medical students anonymously reported whether they had received any feedback, if the new feedback tool had been used and if the received feedback felt valuable. At the end of rotations, students were also asked to leave text comments about their experience of the feedback tool. Course evaluations concerning perceived feedback, before and after introducing a feedback tool, were compared. RESULTS: The 86 students reported about feedback at three occasions, leaving a total of 212 reports (82% response rate). In all reports, the students affirmed having received some feedback, either with or without the feedback tool. In the 123 (58%) reports where feedback was received with the feedback tool, 110 (89%) answered that the feedback was experienced as valuable. Among those 89 (42%) reports where feedback had been delivered without the feedback tool, 41 (46%) described the feedback as valuable. Course evaluation of perceived feedback improved. CONCLUSIONS: Feedback to medical students during psychiatry rotations seems to be optimized by using a structured feedback tool.
OBJECTIVE: Few studies report about the feedback students receive in undergraduate psychiatry training. The aim of this study was to evaluate an effort to optimize feedback to medical students during rotations in psychiatry. METHODS: A structured feedback tool was constructed and introduced during psychiatric rotations. At the end of each week during 3 weeks of clinical psychiatry training, 86 medical students anonymously reported whether they had received any feedback, if the new feedback tool had been used and if the received feedback felt valuable. At the end of rotations, students were also asked to leave text comments about their experience of the feedback tool. Course evaluations concerning perceived feedback, before and after introducing a feedback tool, were compared. RESULTS: The 86 students reported about feedback at three occasions, leaving a total of 212 reports (82% response rate). In all reports, the students affirmed having received some feedback, either with or without the feedback tool. In the 123 (58%) reports where feedback was received with the feedback tool, 110 (89%) answered that the feedback was experienced as valuable. Among those 89 (42%) reports where feedback had been delivered without the feedback tool, 41 (46%) described the feedback as valuable. Course evaluation of perceived feedback improved. CONCLUSIONS: Feedback to medical students during psychiatry rotations seems to be optimized by using a structured feedback tool.