The Senior Medical Resident's New Role in Assessment in Internal Medicine

Feedback that Lands: Exploring How Residents Receive and Judge Feedback During Entrustable Professional Activities

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.

Residents as supervisors: How senior residents make ad hoc entrustment decisions

BACKGROUND

As residency programmes transition to competency-based medical education, there has been substantial inquiry into understanding how ad hoc entrustment decisions are made by attending supervisors in the clinical context. However, although attendings are ultimately responsible for the decisions and actions of resident trainees, senior residents are often the ones directly supervising junior residents enrolled in competency-based training programmes. This clinical dynamic has been largely overlooked in the ad hoc entrustment literature. The purpose of this study was to explore the considerations senior residents entertain when making ad hoc entrustment decisions for their junior resident colleagues.

METHODS

In semi-structured interviews, 11 senior resident supervisors (third, fourth and fifth year) in obstetrics and gynaecology described how they entrust junior residents with clinical activities in the moment. Following constructivist grounded theory methodology, data were iteratively collected and coded with constant comparison until theoretical sufficiency was determined.

RESULTS

Senior residents described many similar considerations as attendings regarding ad hoc entrustment of junior residents, including patient safety, desire to optimise the learning environment, junior resident qualities (such as discernment and communication skills), learner handover from colleagues, and situational factors. Uniquely, senior residents discussed how their role as a middle manager and their desire to protect the junior resident (from burnout, becoming a second victim and from attendings) impacts their decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Although senior residents make ad hoc entrustment decisions with some similar considerations to attendings, they also seem to think about additional factors. It may be that these different considerations need to be accommodated in documentation of ad hoc entrustment decisions if these documents are to be used for high-stakes summative entrustment decisions made by competency committees.

What does "Timely" Mean to Residents? Challenging Feedback Assumptions in Postgraduate Education

Introduction

Current orthodoxy states that feedback should be timely and face-to-face, yet the optimal timing and mode of delivery for feedback is unclear. We explored what "optimal timing" means from residents' points of view as feedback providers and receivers, to ultimately inform strategies to optimize feedback in training.

Methods

As near-peers who have dual roles in both providing and receiving feedback, 16 subspecialty (PGY4 and 5) internal medicine residents were interviewed about their perceptions of the optimal timing and format of feedback. Using constructivist grounded theory, interviews were conducted and analyzed iteratively.

Results

Drawing on their experiences as providers and recipients, residents described simultaneously considering and weighing multiple factors when deciding on when and how to provide feedback. These included their own readiness to engage in providing meaningful feedback, the perceived receptiveness of the learner and the apparent urgency of feedback delivery (e.g., if patient safety was at stake). Face-to-face verbal feedback was valued for encouraging dialogue but could be uncomfortable and limited by time constraints. Written feedback could be more honest and concise, and the possibility of asynchronous delivery had potential to overcome issues with timing and discomfort.

Discussion

Participants' perceptions of the optimal timing of feedback challenge current assumptions about the benefits of "immediate" versus "delayed". The concept of "optimal timing" for feedback was found to be complex and context-dependent, defying a formulaic approach. There may be a role for asynchronous and/or written feedback, which has potential to address unique issues identified issues in near-peer relationships.

Resident Physicians as Clinical Educators in Anesthesiology: A Narrative Review

The importance of resident physicians as clinical educators is widely acknowledged in many clinical specialties and by national accreditation organizations for medical education. Within anesthesiology training programs, there is growing attention to the role of trainees as clinical educators. This narrative review describes the theoretical and demonstrated benefits of clinical teaching by residents in anesthesiology and other medical fields, summarizes current efforts to support and promote residents as educators, and suggests ways in which anesthesiology training programs can further assess and develop the role of residents as clinical educators.

Understanding the near-peer relationship: resident perspectives around a novel on-call workplace-based assessment

BACKGROUND

Workplace-based assessment (WBA) is a critical component of competency-based medical education (CBME), though literature on WBA for overnight call is limited. We evaluated a WBA tool completed by supervising subspecialty trainees on paediatric residents during subspecialty overnight call, for usefulness facilitating feedback/coaching in this setting.

METHODS

Web-based surveys were sent to residents pre- and post-WBA tool implementation monthly for four months (August-December 2018), exploring feedback frequency, Likert-scaled opinions of tool feasibility/usefulness facilitating feedback, and qualitative experiences. Assessor comments were categorized as actionable/non-actionable. Quantitative data was summarized using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data was coded to identify themes.

RESULTS

Total response rates averaged 41% (total 25 responses, average five respondents/12 residents on-call each month). Post-implementation (n = 16 responses), a non-sustained trend of increased Medical Expert feedback was observed. Residents were generally divided or disagreed on tool usefulness facilitating feedback and feasibility. Comments contained actionable feedback in < 10% of completed WBAs. Qualitative analysis revealed barriers to tool-facilitated coaching including: feedback quality and setting/environment, role of senior near-peer as assessor, interpersonal burden in encounters, and tool-specific issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing frequency of WBA tool completion is not sufficient to achieve CBME goals. Factors impacting feedback/coaching within the resident/near-peer dyad must be addressed.

A qualitative study of medical students' perceptions of resident feedback

CONTEXT

Residents play a pivotal role in medical students' clinical education. From a feedback lens, the near-peer relationship between student and resident holds the potential to foster an educational alliance that could influence learning. We undertook the current qualitative study to explore medical students' perceptions of feedback experiences with residents, addressing when, how and why (and conversely when not and why not) resident feedback plays a role in their clinical education.

METHODS

Our methodology was qualitative interpretive description, informed by phenomenology. We conducted 24 semi-structured interviews with third and fourth year medical students at one institution. The interviews aimed to foster rich discussion about students' feedback experiences with residents during clinical rotations. Data collection and analysis proceeded iteratively. Initial interviews were independently open-coded by three investigators and then collaboratively refined. Codes were applied to subsequent interviews, and new codes were developed. During the final stages of analysis, we organised our themes by drawing on a sociocultural perspective to examine students' perceptions of relationship-building with residents and when and how this influenced feedback and learning.

RESULTS

From the students' perspectives, when residents contributed to building interpersonal relationships with students, this in turn influenced students' receptivity to both encouraging and constructive feedback conversations. In the context of resident-student relationships that were perceived as supportive, resident feedback influenced how students approached learning and working in the clinical environment, as well as students' visions of their future selves. In unsupportive relationships, students were less inclined to engage in feedback with residents and students noted resident behaviours that they wanted to avoid in themselves.

CONCLUSION

Residents are uniquely positioned to create a strong educational alliance with students in which feedback conversations can flourish. Focusing educational efforts on resident feedback conversations has the potential to significantly impact the feedback culture of our clinical environments.