Medical residents and attending physicians’ perceptions of feedback and teaching in the United States: a qualitative study

Radiologist preferences for faculty development initiatives to improve resident feedback in the era of competency-based medical education

INTRODUCTION

Since 2022, all Canadian post-graduate medical programs have transitioned to a Competence by Design (CBD) model within a Competency-Based Medical Education (CBME) framework. The CBME model emphasized more frequent, formative assessment of residents to evaluate their progress towards predefined competencies in comparison to traditional medical education models. Faculty members therefore have increased responsibility for providing assessments to residents on a more regular basis, which has associated challenges. Our study explores faculty assessment behaviours within the CBD framework and assesses their openness to opportunities aimed at improving the quality of written feedback. Specifically, we explore faculty's receptiveness to routine metric performance reports that offer comprehensive feedback on their assessment patterns.

METHODS

Online surveys were distributed to all 28 radiology faculty at Queen's University. Data were collected on demographics, feedback practices, motivations for improving the teacher-learner feedback exchange, and openness to metric performance reports and quality improvement measures. Following descriptive statistics, unpaired t-tests and one-way analysis of variance were conducted to compare groups based on experience and subspecialty.

RESULTS

The response rate was 89% (25/28 faculty). 56% of faculty were likely to complete evaluations after working with a resident. Regarding the degree to which faculty felt written feedback is important, 62% found it at least moderately important. A majority (67%) believed that performance reports could influence their evaluation approach, with volume of written feedback being the most likely to change. Faculty expressed interest in feedback-focused development opportunities (67%), favouring Grand Rounds and workshops.

CONCLUSION

Assessment of preceptor perceptions reveals that faculty recognize the importance of offering high-quality written feedback to learners. Faculty openness to quality improvement interventions for curricular reform relies on having sufficient time, knowledge, and skills for effective assessments. This suggests that integrating routine performance metrics into faculty assessments could serve as a catalyst for enhancing future feedback quality.

Through the Looking Glass: Comparing Hospitalists' and Internal Medicine Residents' Perceptions of Feedback

INTRODUCTION

Feedback is critical for resident growth and is most effective when the relationship between residents and attendings is collaborative, with shared expectations for the purpose, timing, and manner of communication for feedback. Within internal medicine, there is limited work exploring the resident and hospitalist perspectives on whether key elements are included in feedback sessions.

METHODS

We surveyed internal medicine residents and supervising hospitalists at a large urban training program about their perspectives on four components of effective feedback: specificity,timeliness, respectful communication, and actionability.

RESULTS

We received surveys from 130/184 internal medicine residents and 74/129 hospitalists (71% and 57% response rate, respectively). Residents and hospitalists differed in their perspectives about specificity and timeliness: 54% (70/129) of residents reported they did not receive specific feedback while 90% (65/72) of hospitalists reported they delivered specific feedback (p<0.01), and 33% (43/129) of residents compared with 82% (59/72) of hospitalists perceived feedback as timely (p<0.01). Internal medicine residents and hospitalists reported concordant rates of feedback sessions consisting of a two-way conversation (84%, 109/129; 89%, 64/72, respectively, p=0.82) and that communication was delivered in a respectful manner (95%, 122/129; 97%, 70/72, respectively, p=0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed discordance between internal medicine residents and supervising hospitalist perspectives on the inclusion of two critical components of feedback: specificity and timing. The hospitalist cohort reported delivering more components of effective feedback than the resident cohort reported receiving. The etiology of this discordance is likely multifactorial and requires further investigation.

Resident Assessment of Clinician Educators According to Core ACGME Competencies

BACKGROUND

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires faculty to pursue annual development to enhance their teaching skills. Few studies exist on how to identify and improve the quality of teaching provided by faculty educators. Understanding the correlation between numeric scores assigned to faculty educators and their tangible, practical teaching skills would be beneficial.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify and describe qualities that differentiate numerically highly rated and low-rated physician educators.

DESIGN

This observational mixed-methods study evaluated attending physician educators between July 1, 2015, and June 30, 2021. Quantitative analysis involved descriptive statistics, normalization of scores, and stratification of faculty into tertiles based on a summary score. We compared the highest and lowest tertiles during qualitative analyses of residents' comments.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-five attending physicians and 111 residents in an internal medicine residency program.

MAIN MEASURES

Resident evaluations of faculty educators, including 724 individual assessments of faculty educators on 15 variables related to the ACGME core competencies.

KEY RESULTS

Quantitative analyses revealed variation in attending physician educators' performance across the ACGME core competencies. The highest-rated teaching qualities were interpersonal and communication skills, medical knowledge, and professionalism, while the lowest-rated teaching quality was systems-based practice. Qualitative analyses identified themes distinguishing high-quality from low-quality attending physician educators, such as balancing autonomy and supervision, role modeling, engagement, availability, compassion, and excellent teaching.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides insights into areas where attending physicians' educational strategies can be improved, emphasizing the importance of role modeling and effective communication. Ongoing efforts are needed to enhance the quality of faculty educators and resident education in internal medicine residency programs.