Dataset Information

Guidelines: the do's, don'ts and don't knows of feedback for clinical education.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The guidelines offered in this paper aim to amalgamate the literature on formative feedback into practical Do's, Don'ts and Don't Knows for individual clinical supervisors and for the institutions that support clinical learning.

Methods

The authors built consensus by an iterative process. Do's and Don'ts were proposed based on authors' individual teaching experience and awareness of the literature, and the amalgamated set of guidelines were then refined by all authors and the evidence was summarized for each guideline. Don't Knows were identified as being important questions to this international group of educators which if answered would change practice. The criteria for inclusion of evidence for these guidelines were not those of a systematic review, so indicators of strength of these recommendations were developed which combine the evidence with the authors' consensus.

Results

A set of 32 Do and Don't guidelines with the important Don't Knows was compiled along with a summary of the evidence for each. These are divided into guidelines for the individual clinical supervisor giving feedback to their trainee (recommendations about both the process and the content of feedback) and guidelines for the learning culture (what elements of learning culture support the exchange of meaningful feedback, and what elements constrain it?)

Conclusion

Feedback is not easy to get right, but it is essential to learning in medicine, and there is a wealth of evidence supporting the Do's and warning against the Don'ts. Further research into the critical Don't Knows of feedback is required. A new definition is offered: Helpful feedback is a supportive conversation that clarifies the trainee's awareness of their developing competencies, enhances their self-efficacy for making progress, challenges them to set objectives for improvement, and facilitates their development of strategies to enable that improvement to occur.

SUBMITTER: Lefroy J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4673072 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough systematic use of the Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand internationally endorsed Clinical Practice Guideline for Perinatal Mortality (PSANZ-CPG) improves health outcomes, implementation is inadequate. Its complexity is a feature known to be associated with non-compliance. Interactive education is effective as a guideline implementation strategy, but lacks an agreed definition. SCORPIO is an educational framework containing interactive and didactic teaching, but has not previously been used to implement guidelines. Our aim was to transform the PSANZ-CPG into an education workshop to develop quality standardised interactive education acceptable to participants for learning skills in collaborative interprofessional care.MethodsThe workshop was developed using the construct of an educational framework (SCORPIO), the PSANZ-CPG, a transformation process and tutor training. After a pilot workshop with key target and stakeholder groups, modifications were made to this and subsequent workshops based on multisource written observations from interprofessional participants, tutors and an independent educator. This participatory action research process was used to monitor acceptability and educational standards. Standardised interactive education was defined as the attainment of content and teaching standards. Quantitative analysis of positive expressed as a percentage of total feedback was used to derive a total quality score.ResultsEight workshops were held with 181 participants and 15 different tutors. Five versions resulted from the action research methodology. Thematic analysis of multisource observations identified eight recurring education themes or quality domains used for standardisation. The two content domains were curriculum and alignment with the guideline and the six teaching domains; overload, timing, didacticism, relevance, reproducibility and participant engagement. Engagement was the most challenging theme to resolve. Tutors identified all themes for revision whilst participants identified a number of teaching but no content themes. From version 1 to 5, a significant increasing trend in total quality score was obtained; participants: 55%, p=0.0001; educator: 42%, p=0.0004; tutor peers: 57%, p=0.0001.ConclusionsComplex clinical guidelines can be developed into a workshop acceptable to interprofessional participants. Eight quality domains provide a framework to standardise interactive teaching for complex clinical guidelines. Tutor peer review is important for content validity. This methodology may be useful for other guideline implementation.

Project description:BackgroundClinical practice guidelines are an important source of information, designed to help clinicians integrate research evidence into their clinical practice. Digital education is increasingly used for clinical practice guideline dissemination and adoption. Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of digital education in improving the adoption of clinical practice guidelines.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and searched seven electronic databases from January 1990 to September 2018. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We included studies in any language evaluating the effectiveness of digital education on clinical practice guidelines compared to other forms of education or no intervention in healthcare professionals. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of the body of evidence.ResultsSeventeen trials involving 2382 participants were included. The included studies were diverse with a largely unclear or high risk of bias. They mostly focused on physicians, evaluated computer-based interventions with limited interactivity and measured participants' knowledge and behaviour. With regard to knowledge, studies comparing the effect of digital education with no intervention showed a moderate, statistically significant difference in favour of digital education intervention (SMD?=?0.85, 95% CI 0.16, 1.54; I2 =?83%, n =?3, moderate quality of evidence). Studies comparing the effect of digital education with traditional learning on knowledge showed a small, statistically non-significant difference in favour of digital education (SMD?=?0.23, 95% CI -?0.12, 0.59; I2 =?34%, n =?3, moderate quality of evidence). Three studies measured participants' skills and reported mixed results. Of four studies measuring satisfaction, three studies favoured digital education over traditional learning. Of nine studies evaluating healthcare professionals' behaviour change, only one study comparing email-delivered, spaced education intervention to no intervention reported improvement in the intervention group. Of three studies reporting patient outcomes, only one study comparing email-delivered, spaced education games to non-interactive online resources reported modest improvement in the intervention group. The quality of evidence for outcomes other than knowledge was mostly judged as low due to risk of bias, imprecision and/or inconsistency.ConclusionsHealth professions digital education on clinical practice guidelines is at least as effective as traditional learning and more effective than no intervention in terms of knowledge. Most studies report little or no difference in healthcare professionals' behaviours and patient outcomes. The only intervention shown to improve healthcare professionals' behaviour and modestly patient outcomes was email-delivered, spaced education. Future research should evaluate interactive, simulation-based and spaced forms of digital education and report on outcomes such as skills, behaviour, patient outcomes and cost.