Emmett A Kistler1, Victor Chiappa2, Yuchiao Chang3, Meridale Baggett2. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. ekistler1@mgh.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine (Biostatistics), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Feedback improves trainee clinical performance, but the optimal way to provide it remains unclear. Peer feedback offers unique advantages but comes with significant challenges including a lack of rigorously studied methods. The SPIKES framework is a communication tool adapted from the oncology and palliative care literature for teaching trainees how to lead difficult conversations. OBJECTIVE: To determine if a brief educational intervention focused on the SPIKES framework improves peer feedback between internal medicine trainees on inpatient medicine services as compared to usual practice. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial at an academic medical center during academic year 2017-2018. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-five PGY1 and 49 PGY2 internal medicine trainees were enrolled. PGY2s were randomized 1:1 to the intervention or control group. INTERVENTION: The intervention entailed a 30-min, case-based didactic on the SPIKES framework followed by a refresher email on SPIKES sent to PGY2s before each inpatient medicine rotation. PGY1s were blinded as to which PGY2s underwent the training. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was PGY1 evaluation of the extent of feedback provided by PGY2s. Secondary outcomes included PGY1 report of feedback quality and PGY2 self-report of feedback quantity and quality. Outcomes were obtained via anonymous online survey and reported using a Likert scale with a range of one to four. KEY RESULTS: PGY1s completed 207 surveys (51% response rate) and PGY2s completed 61 surveys (42% response rate). PGY1s reported a higher extent of feedback (2.5 vs 2.2; p = 0.02; Cohen's d = 0.31), more specific feedback (2.3 vs 2.0; p < 0.01; d = 0.33), and higher satisfaction with feedback (2.6 vs 2.2; p < 0.01; d = 0.47) from intervention PGY2s. There were no significant differences in PGY2 self-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: With modest implementation requirements and notable limitations, a brief educational intervention focused on SPIKES increased PGY1 perception of the extent, specificity, and satisfaction with feedback from PGY2s.
BACKGROUND: Feedback improves trainee clinical performance, but the optimal way to provide it remains unclear. Peer feedback offers unique advantages but comes with significant challenges including a lack of rigorously studied methods. The SPIKES framework is a communication tool adapted from the oncology and palliative care literature for teaching trainees how to lead difficult conversations. OBJECTIVE: To determine if a brief educational intervention focused on the SPIKES framework improves peer feedback between internal medicine trainees on inpatient medicine services as compared to usual practice. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial at an academic medical center during academic year 2017-2018. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-five PGY1 and 49 PGY2 internal medicine trainees were enrolled. PGY2s were randomized 1:1 to the intervention or control group. INTERVENTION: The intervention entailed a 30-min, case-based didactic on the SPIKES framework followed by a refresher email on SPIKES sent to PGY2s before each inpatient medicine rotation. PGY1s were blinded as to which PGY2s underwent the training. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was PGY1 evaluation of the extent of feedback provided by PGY2s. Secondary outcomes included PGY1 report of feedback quality and PGY2 self-report of feedback quantity and quality. Outcomes were obtained via anonymous online survey and reported using a Likert scale with a range of one to four. KEY RESULTS: PGY1s completed 207 surveys (51% response rate) and PGY2s completed 61 surveys (42% response rate). PGY1s reported a higher extent of feedback (2.5 vs 2.2; p = 0.02; Cohen's d = 0.31), more specific feedback (2.3 vs 2.0; p < 0.01; d = 0.33), and higher satisfaction with feedback (2.6 vs 2.2; p < 0.01; d = 0.47) from intervention PGY2s. There were no significant differences in PGY2 self-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: With modest implementation requirements and notable limitations, a brief educational intervention focused on SPIKES increased PGY1 perception of the extent, specificity, and satisfaction with feedback from PGY2s.
Authors: Robert Bing-You; Victoria Hayes; Kalli Varaklis; Robert Trowbridge; Heather Kemp; Dina McKelvy Journal: Acad Med Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Madeleine I Matthiesen; Keith Baker; Jo Shapiro; Yuchiao Chang; Trent D Buskirk; Douglas E Wright Journal: Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) Date: 2019-08-05
Authors: Anthony L Back; Robert M Arnold; Walter F Baile; Kelly A Fryer-Edwards; Stewart C Alexander; Gwyn E Barley; Ted A Gooley; James A Tulsky Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2007-03-12
Authors: Paweł Marschollek; Katarzyna Bąkowska; Wojciech Bąkowski; Karol Marschollek; Radosław Tarkowski Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Kevin W Eva; Heather Armson; Eric Holmboe; Jocelyn Lockyer; Elaine Loney; Karen Mann; Joan Sargeant Journal: Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract Date: 2011-04-06 Impact factor: 3.853