Natasha Sheikh, Joshua Mehta, Rupal Shah, Ryan Brydges
{"title":"Feedback that Lands: Exploring How Residents Receive and Judge Feedback During Entrustable Professional Activities.","authors":"Natasha Sheikh, Joshua Mehta, Rupal Shah, Ryan Brydges","doi":"10.5334/pme.1020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Receiving feedback from different types of assessors (e.g., senior residents, staff supervisors) may impact trainees' perceptions of the quantity and quality of data during entrustable professional activity (EPA) assessments. We evaluated the quality of EPA feedback provided by different assessors (senior residents, chief medical residents/subspecialty residents, and staff) and explored residents' judgements of the value of this feedback.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From a database of 2228 EPAs, we calculated the frequency of contribution from three assessor groups. We appraised the quality of 60 procedure-related EPAs completed between July 2019 and March 2020 using a modified Completed Clinical Evaluation Report Rating (CCERR) tool. Next, we asked 15 internal medicine residents to sort randomly selected EPAs according to their judgements of value, as an elicitation exercise before a semi-structured interview. Interviews explored participants' perceptions of quality of written feedback and helpful assessors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Residents completed over 60% of EPA assessments. We found no difference in modified-CCERR scores between the three groups. When judging EPA feedback value, residents described a process of weighted deliberation, considering perceived assessor characteristics (e.g., credibility, experience with EPA system), actionable written comments, and their own self-assessment.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Like other recent studies, we found that residents contributed most to procedure-related EPA assessments. To the established list of factors influencing residents' judgements of feedback value, we add assessors' adherence to, and their shared experiences of being assessed within, EPA assessment systems. We focus on the implications for how assessors and leaders can build credibility in themselves and in the practices of EPA assessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":48532,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Medical Education","volume":"12 1","pages":"427-437"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10588547/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.1020","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Receiving feedback from different types of assessors (e.g., senior residents, staff supervisors) may impact trainees' perceptions of the quantity and quality of data during entrustable professional activity (EPA) assessments. We evaluated the quality of EPA feedback provided by different assessors (senior residents, chief medical residents/subspecialty residents, and staff) and explored residents' judgements of the value of this feedback.
Methods: From a database of 2228 EPAs, we calculated the frequency of contribution from three assessor groups. We appraised the quality of 60 procedure-related EPAs completed between July 2019 and March 2020 using a modified Completed Clinical Evaluation Report Rating (CCERR) tool. Next, we asked 15 internal medicine residents to sort randomly selected EPAs according to their judgements of value, as an elicitation exercise before a semi-structured interview. Interviews explored participants' perceptions of quality of written feedback and helpful assessors.
Results: Residents completed over 60% of EPA assessments. We found no difference in modified-CCERR scores between the three groups. When judging EPA feedback value, residents described a process of weighted deliberation, considering perceived assessor characteristics (e.g., credibility, experience with EPA system), actionable written comments, and their own self-assessment.
Discussion: Like other recent studies, we found that residents contributed most to procedure-related EPA assessments. To the established list of factors influencing residents' judgements of feedback value, we add assessors' adherence to, and their shared experiences of being assessed within, EPA assessment systems. We focus on the implications for how assessors and leaders can build credibility in themselves and in the practices of EPA assessments.
期刊介绍：
Perspectives on Medical Education mission is support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices.
Official journal of the The Netherlands Association of Medical Education (NVMO).
Perspectives on Medical Education is a non-profit Open Access journal with no charges for authors to submit or publish an article, and the full text of all articles is freely available immediately upon publication, thanks to the sponsorship of The Netherlands Association for Medical Education.
Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy.
Perspectives on Medical Education positions itself at the dynamic intersection of educational research and clinical education. While other journals in the health professional education domain orient predominantly to education researchers or to clinical educators, Perspectives positions itself at the collaborative interface between these perspectives. This unique positioning reflects the journal’s mission to support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices. Reflecting this mission, the journal both welcomes original research papers arising from scholarly collaborations among clinicians, teachers and researchers and papers providing resources to develop the community’s ability to conduct such collaborative research. The journal’s audience includes researchers and practitioners: researchers who wish to explore challenging questions of health professions education and clinical teachers who wish to both advance their practice and envision for themselves a collaborative role in scholarly educational innovation. This audience of researchers, clinicians and educators is both international and interdisciplinary.
The journal has a long history. In 1982, the journal was founded by the Dutch Association for Medical Education, as a Dutch language journal (Netherlands Journal of Medical Education). As a Dutch journal it fuelled educational research and innovation in the Netherlands. It is one of the factors for the Dutch success in medical education. In 2012, it widened its scope, transforming into an international English language journal. The journal swiftly became international in all aspects: the readers, authors, reviewers and editorial board members.
The editorial board members represent the different parental disciplines in the field of medical education, e.g. clinicians, social scientists, biomedical scientists, statisticians and linguists. Several of them are leading scholars. Three of the editors are in the top ten of most cited authors in the medical education field. Two editors were awarded the Karolinska Institute Prize for Research. Presently, Erik Driessen leads the journal as Editor in Chief.
Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy. It is sponsored by theThe Netherlands Association of Medical Education and offers free manuscript submission.
Perspectives on Medical Education positions itself at the dynamic intersection of educational research and clinical education. While other journals in the health professional education domain orient predominantly to education researchers or to clinical educators, Perspectives positions itself at the collaborative interface between these perspectives. This unique positioning reflects the journal’s mission to support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices. Reflecting this mission, the journal both welcomes original research papers arising from scholarly collaborations among clinicians, teachers and researchers and papers providing resources to develop the community’s ability to conduct such collaborative research. The journal’s audience includes researchers and practitioners: researchers who wish to explore challenging questions of health professions education and clinical teachers who wish to both advance their practice and envision for themselves a collaborative role in scholarly educational innovation. This audience of researchers, clinicians and educators is both international and interdisciplinary.
The journal has a long history. In 1982, the journal was founded by the Dutch Association for Medical Education, as a Dutch language journal (Netherlands Journal of Medical Education). As a Dutch journal it fuelled educational research and innovation in the Netherlands. It is one of the factors for the Dutch success in medical education. In 2012, it widened its scope, transforming into an international English language journal. The journal swiftly became international in all aspects: the readers, authors, reviewers and editorial board members.
The editorial board members represent the different parental disciplines in the field of medical education, e.g. clinicians, social scientists, biomedical scientists, statisticians and linguists. Several of them are leading scholars. Three of the editors are in the top ten of most cited authors in the medical education field. Two editors were awarded the Karolinska Institute Prize for Research. Presently, Erik Driessen leads the journal as Editor in Chief.
Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy. It is sponsored by theThe Netherlands Association of Medical Education and offers free manuscript submission.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
