Literature DB >> 34222757

Educational autopsy: An innovative structured debrief for residency didactic teaching.

Max Griffith1, Charles Brown1, Mary R C Haas2, Robert D Huang2, Laura R Hopson2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Educational autopsy (EA) is an innovative technique designed to improve the quality of feedback provided to conference presenters. In response to survey fatigue and suboptimal feedback from online evaluations, this postlecture group debrief was adapted to emergency medicine residency didactics, with a goal of collecting timely, specific, and balanced feedback for presenters. Other aims include encouraging participants to think critically about educational methods and providing presenters with formal feedback for a portfolio or promotion packet. It was hypothesized that EA provides more specific and actionable feedback than traditional online evaluations deployed individually to conference attendees.
METHODS: The authors analyzed 4 months of evaluations pre- and postimplementation of EA. Rate of completion, presence of comments, and types of comments were compared. Comments were coded as specific, nonspecific, and unrelated/unclear. Specific comments were further categorized as about audiovisual presentation design, speaker presentation style, and educational methods of the session.
RESULTS: A total of 46 of 65 (71%) preimplementation presentations eligible for evaluation received comments through traditional online evaluations. A total of 44 of 75 (59%) eligible postimplementation presentations generated comments via EA. Among presentations that received comments, none received nonspecific comments via EA, compared to 46% of lectures through traditional evaluations. EA generated specific comments for more presentations regarding presentation design (91% vs. 63%), presentation style (66% vs. 24%), and educational methods (48% vs. 28%). EA produced no unclear comments; traditional evaluations resulted in unclear comments for 15% of lectures.
CONCLUSIONS: EA generated more specific feedback for residency conference presenters, although there were a number of sessions not evaluated by EA. Although this limited analysis suggested that EA produced higher-quality presenter feedback, it also showed a drop-off in the proportion of didactic sessions that received narrative feedback.
© 2021 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  assessment; didactics; educational innovation; feedback; graduate medical education

Year:  2021        PMID: 34222757      PMCID: PMC8239163          DOI: 10.1002/aet2.10628

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AEM Educ Train        ISSN: 2472-5390


  8 in total

Review 1.  Feedback and reflection: teaching methods for clinical settings.

Authors:  William T Branch; Anuradha Paranjape
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 6.893

Review 2.  Selecting, designing, and developing your questionnaire.

Authors:  Petra M Boynton; Trisha Greenhalgh
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-05-29

3.  Teaching medical education principles and methods to faculty using an active learning approach: the University of Michigan Medical Education Scholars Program.

Authors:  Alice Z Frohna; Stanley J Hamstra; Patricia B Mullan; Larry D Gruppen
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 6.893

Review 4.  Not another boring lecture: engaging learners with active learning techniques.

Authors:  Margaret Wolff; Mary Jo Wagner; Stacey Poznanski; Jocelyn Schiller; Sally Santen
Journal:  J Emerg Med       Date:  2014-10-13       Impact factor: 1.484

5.  Redesigning evaluation forms improves didactic conference assessment.

Authors:  Adin M Nelson; Christin M Traba
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2019-03-11       Impact factor: 6.251

6.  Feedback in clinical medical education.

Authors:  J Ende
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1983-08-12       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  A pilot study of team-based learning in one-hour pediatrics residency conferences.

Authors:  Anna Volerman; Rachel Stork Poeppelman
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2019-07-18       Impact factor: 2.463

Review 8.  Feedback in the clinical setting.

Authors:  Annette Burgess; Christie van Diggele; Chris Roberts; Craig Mellis
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2020-12-03       Impact factor: 2.463

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.