Dataset Information

Processing multisource feedback during residency under the guidance of a non-medical coach.

ABSTRACT: The present study aimed to investigate residents' preferences in dealing with personal multi-source feedback (MSF) reports with or without the support of a coach.Residents employed for at least half a year in the study hospital were eligible to participate. All 43 residents opting to discuss their MSF report with a psychologist-coach before discussing results with the program director were included. Semi-structured interviews were conducted following individual coaching sessions. Qualitative and quantitative data were gathered using field notes.Seventy-four percent (n= 32) preferred sharing the MFS report always with a coach, 21% (n= 9) if either the feedback or the relationship with the program director was less favorable, and 5% (n=2) saw no difference between discussing with a coach or with the program director. In the final stage of training residents more often preferred the coach (82.6%, n=19) than in the first stages (65%, n=13). Reasons for discussing the report with a coach included her neutral and objective position, her expertise, and the open and safe context during the discussion.Most residents preferred discussing multisource feedback results with a coach before their meeting with a program director, particularly if the results were negative. They appeared to struggle with the dual role of the program director (coaching and judging) and appreciated the expertise of a dedicated coach to navigate this confrontation. We encourage residency programs to consider offering residents neutral coaching when processing multisource feedback.

SUBMITTER: Buis CAM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5834823 | biostudies-other | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Processing multisource feedback during residency under the guidance of a non-medical coach.

Buis Caroline A M CAM Eckenhausen Marina A W MAW Ten Cate Olle O

International journal of medical education 20180223

<h4>Objectives</h4>The present study aimed to investigate residents' preferences in dealing with personal multi-source feedback (MSF) reports with or without the support of a coach.<h4>Methods</h4>Residents employed for at least half a year in the study hospital were eligible to participate. All 43 residents opting to discuss their MSF report with a psychologist-coach before discussing results with the program director were included. Semi-structured interviews were conducted following individual ...[more]

PMID: 29478041

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn medical students' workplace learning, feedback is important for effective learning regarding communication and clinical skills. The provision of multisource feedback (MSF) in clinical practice with focus on the patient's perspective is rarely addressed in the literature. The overall objective was to explore the experience of MSF in medical students' clinical learning in primary healthcare (PHC).MethodsIn the study, patients provided feedback by use of the Patient Feedback in Clinical Practice (PFCP) questionnaire. By use of adapted PFCP questionnaire versions peers and clinical supervisors provided feedback and students performed a self-evaluation. The MSF learning activity was evaluated using surveys (4-point Likert scale/open-ended questions), (students (n = 26), peers (n = 9) and clinical supervisors (n = 7)). Data were analysed using descriptive and qualitative content analysis.ResultsResults (mean 4-point Likert scale) from participants evaluation of the MSF learning activity visualises the value of feedback in terms of patient-centred communication (students 3.50, peers 2.44 and clinical supervisors 3.57), guidance for further training (students 3.14, peers 2.89 and clinical supervisors 3.00) and clarification of pedagogical assignment (students 3.14, peers 2.89 and clinical supervisors 3.00). Thematic analysis of participants' free-text answers in the evaluation surveys resulted in three themes: (1) applicability of the MSF, (2) MSF - collaborative learning process and (3) MSF as a facilitator in students' clinical skills development. The participants experienced that the written MSF provided multi-facetted perspectives, which contributed to students' and peers' clinical and communication learning. MSF experience also enhanced clinical supervisors' feedback regarding communication skills, targeting the supervisors' pedagogical assignment.ConclusionOur findings indicate that MSF provided directly after a patient encounter, using the PFCP questionnaire as feedback provider, could be an adequate learning activity for medical students' workplace learning. The MSF, provided through the PFCP questionnaire, was experienced to neutralise and operationalise the provision of concrete feedback, facilitating peers' learning and clinical supervisors' tuition. The results visualise the importance of patients in MSF, as a valuable resource in students' workplace learning. Our study implies that this learning activity could be an applicable tool to facilitate learning and pedagogic development in clinical education in PHC.

Project description:ObjectivesTrauma resuscitations require competence in both clinical and nonclinical skills but these can be difficult to observe and assess. Multisource feedback (MSF) is workplace-based, involves the direct observation of learners, and can provide feedback on nonclinical skills. We sought to compare and contrast the priorities of multidisciplinary trauma team members when assessing resident trauma team captain (TTC) performance. Additionally, we aimed to describe the nature of the assessment and perceived the utility of incorporating MSF into the trauma context.MethodsA convenience sample of 10 trauma team activations were observed. Following each activation, the attending physician trauma team leader (TTL), TTC, and a registered nurse (RN) participated in a semistructured interview. MSF was not provided to the TTC for the purpose of this study because MSF was not part of the assessment process of TTCs at the time of this study and maintaining anonymity may have encouraged more honest interview responses. Transcripts from each assessor group (TTL, TTC, RN) were coded and assigned to one of the five crisis resource management skills: leadership, communication, situational awareness, resource utilization, and problem-solving. Comments were also coded as positive, negative, or neutral as interpreted by the coder.ResultsAll assessor groups mentioned communication skills most frequently. After communication, the RN and TTC groups commented on situational awareness most frequently, comprising 15 and 29% of their total responses, respectively, whereas 31% of the TTL comments focused on leadership skills. The RN and TTL groups provided positive assessments, with 51 and 42% of their respective comments coded as positive. Forty-five percent of self-assessment comments in the TTC group were negative. All (100%) of the TTC and TTL respondents felt that incorporating MSF would add to the quality of feedback, only 66% of the RN group felt that way.ConclusionsWe found that each assessor group brings a unique focus and perspective to the assessment of resident TTC performance. The future inclusion of MSF in the trauma team context has the potential to enhance the learning environment in a clinical arena that is difficult to directly observe and assess.

Dataset Information

Processing multisource feedback during residency under the guidance of a non-medical coach.

Publications

Processing multisource feedback during residency under the guidance of a non-medical coach.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets