BACKGROUND: The R2C2, a 4-phase feedback and coaching model, builds relationships, explores reactions, determines content and coaches for change, and facilitates formal feedback conversations between clinical supervisors/preceptors and residents. Formal discussions about performance are typically based on collated information from daily encounter sheets, objective structured clinical examinations, multisource feedback, and other data. This model has not been studied in settings where brief feedback and coaching conversations occur immediately after a specific clinical experience. OBJECTIVE: We explored how supervisors adapt the R2C2 model for in-the-moment feedback and coaching and developed a guide for its use in this context. METHODS: Eleven purposefully selected supervisors were interviewed in 2018 to explore where they used the R2C2 model, how they adapted it for in-the-moment conversations, and phrases used corresponding to each phase that could guide design of a new R2C2 in-the-moment model. RESULTS: Participants readily adapted the model to varied feedback situations; each of the 4 phases were relevant for conversations. Phase-specific phrases that could enable effective coaching conversations in a limited amount of time were identified. Data facilitated a revision of the original R2C2 model for in-the-moment feedback and coaching conversations and design of an accompanying trifold brochure to enable its effective use. CONCLUSIONS: The R2C2 in-the-moment model offers a systematic approach to feedback and coaching that builds on the original model, yet addresses time constraints and the need for an iterative conversation between the reaction and content phases. The model enables supervisors to coach and co-create an action plan with residents to improve performance. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education 2020.
BACKGROUND: The R2C2, a 4-phase feedback and coaching model, builds relationships, explores reactions, determines content and coaches for change, and facilitates formal feedback conversations between clinical supervisors/preceptors and residents. Formal discussions about performance are typically based on collated information from daily encounter sheets, objective structured clinical examinations, multisource feedback, and other data. This model has not been studied in settings where brief feedback and coaching conversations occur immediately after a specific clinical experience. OBJECTIVE: We explored how supervisors adapt the R2C2 model for in-the-moment feedback and coaching and developed a guide for its use in this context. METHODS: Eleven purposefully selected supervisors were interviewed in 2018 to explore where they used the R2C2 model, how they adapted it for in-the-moment conversations, and phrases used corresponding to each phase that could guide design of a new R2C2 in-the-moment model. RESULTS: Participants readily adapted the model to varied feedback situations; each of the 4 phases were relevant for conversations. Phase-specific phrases that could enable effective coaching conversations in a limited amount of time were identified. Data facilitated a revision of the original R2C2 model for in-the-moment feedback and coaching conversations and design of an accompanying trifold brochure to enable its effective use. CONCLUSIONS: The R2C2 in-the-moment model offers a systematic approach to feedback and coaching that builds on the original model, yet addresses time constraints and the need for an iterative conversation between the reaction and content phases. The model enables supervisors to coach and co-create an action plan with residents to improve performance. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education 2020.
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: Shea C Gregg; Daithi S Heffernan; Michael D Connolly; Andrew H Stephen; Stephanie N Leuckel; David T Harrington; Jason T Machan; Charles A Adams; William G Cioffi Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: Robert Bing-You; Kalli Varaklis; Victoria Hayes; Robert Trowbridge; Heather Kemp; Dina McKelvy Journal: Acad Med Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Joan Sargeant; Jocelyn M Lockyer; Karen Mann; Heather Armson; Andrew Warren; Marygrace Zetkulic; Sophie Soklaridis; Karen D Könings; Kathryn Ross; Ivan Silver; Eric Holmboe; Cindy Shearer; Michelle Boudreau Journal: Acad Med Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Amir H Safavi; Janet Papadakos; Tina Papadakos; Naa Kwarley Quartey; Karen Lawrie; Eden Klein; Sarah Storer; Jennifer Croke; Barbara-Ann Millar; Raymond Jang; Andrea Bezjak; Meredith E Giuliani Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2021-06-24 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Mary Ellen J Goldhamer; Maria Martinez-Lage; W Stephen Black-Schaffer; Jennifer T Huang; John Patrick T Co; Debra F Weinstein; Martin V Pusic Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 6.473