Providing Delayed, In-Person Collected Feedback From Residents to Teaching Faculty: Lessons Learned.

Background Teaching faculty request timely feedback from residents to improve their skills. Yet even with anonymous processes, this upward feedback can be difficult to obtain as residents raise concerns about identification and repercussions. Objective To examine faculty perception of the quality and content of feedback from residents after increasing anonymity and sacrificing timeliness. Methods Between 2011 and 2017, an associate program director at a large internal medicine residency program met briefly with each resident individually to obtain feedback about their teaching faculty shortly after their rotation. To improve anonymity, residents were promised their feedback would not be released until they graduated. In 2019, all feedback was collated and released at one time to faculty. We administered 3 timed, voluntary, anonymous, 36-item closed-ended surveys to faculty asking about the content and value, and to self-identify whether the feedback was praise, constructive, or criticism. Results Exactly 189 faculty participated with 140 completing all 3 surveys (74.1% response rate). Faculty reported this feedback content to be of higher quality (81.0%, 81 of 100) and quantity (82.4%, 84 of 102) in contrast to prior feedback. More than 85.4% (88 of 103) of faculty agreed this feedback was more specific. Faculty identified less praise (median 35.0% vs median 50.0%, P<.001) and more negative constructive feedback (median 20.0% vs median 5.0%, P<.001) compared to prior feedback. More than 82% (116 of 140) of faculty reported it would change their behavior, but 3 months after receiving the feedback, only 63.6% (89 or 140) felt the same way (P<.001). Faculty were divided on the necessity of a time delay, with 41.4% (58 of 140) believing it reduced the feedback's value. Despite the delay, 32.1% (45 of 140) felt they could identify residents. Conclusions Offering a substantial delay in feedback delivery increased anonymity and enabled residents to furnish more nuanced and constructive comments; however, faculty opinions diverged on whether this postponement was valuable.