Educators' behaviours during feedback in authentic clinical practice settings: an observational study and systematic analysis

Does Online Professional Development for Physical Therapists Enhance Clinical Practice and Patient Outcomes? Protocol for a Mixed Methods, Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

Online clinical mentoring has shown potential as a flexible professional development activity that enhances physical therapist practice. Online delivery can overcome time and distance barriers to participation in professional development. The impact of this learning activity on physical therapist practice and patient outcomes has not been rigorously tested. Thus, the aim of this study is to determine whether online clinical mentoring is more effective than asynchronous online lectures at improving physical therapist practice and patient outcomes. An additional aim is to explore the lived experience of physical therapist learners who participate in online clinical mentoring.

METHODS

In this mixed methods evaluation, 24 physical therapist learners will be randomized to 1 of 2 online professional development activities. Experimental group physical therapists will complete 6 online clinical mentoring sessions. Control group physical therapists will complete 6 online lectures. The primary outcome evaluated will be the effect on the physical therapist's patients, using the Patient-Specific Functional Scale. Physical therapist learner secondary outcomes are confidence, self-reflection, and satisfaction. Accounting for possible dropouts, a sample size of 216 patients was determined using a pragmatic sample of 24 physical therapists, power of 0.80, alpha of 0.05, and between-group differences of 1.0 (SD = 2.0) on the Patient-Specific Functional Scale. Consecutive, eligible patients under the care of the physical therapist learners will complete outcome measures at initial appointment and at 4 weeks follow-up. Linear mixed model regression analysis will be used to estimate treatment effects from the posttreatment group means at 4 weeks. Participants undertaking online clinical mentoring will complete semi-structured interviews that will be thematically analyzed using a phenomenological approach.

IMPACT

This research study will establish the effectiveness of online clinical mentoring to inform future professional development. The qualitative component will identify the potential mechanisms by which online clinical mentoring might be effective, thus informing future implementation of this professional development activity.

Development of the Feedback Quality Instrument: a guide for health professional educators in fostering learner-centred discussions

BACKGROUND

Face-to-face feedback plays an important role in health professionals' workplace learning. The literature describes guiding principles regarding effective feedback but it is not clear how to enact these. We aimed to create a Feedback Quality Instrument (FQI), underpinned by a social constructivist perspective, to assist educators in collaborating with learners to support learner-centred feedback interactions. In earlier research, we developed a set of observable educator behaviours designed to promote beneficial learner outcomes, supported by published research and expert consensus. This research focused on analysing and refining this provisional instrument, to create the FQI ready-to-use.

METHODS

We collected videos of authentic face-to-face feedback discussions, involving educators (senior clinicians) and learners (clinicians or students), during routine clinical practice across a major metropolitan hospital network. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of the video data were used to refine the provisional instrument. Raters administered the provisional instrument to systematically analyse educators' feedback practice seen in the videos. This enabled usability testing and resulted in ratings data for psychometric analysis involving multifaceted Rasch model analysis and exploratory factor analysis. Parallel qualitative research of the video transcripts focused on two under-researched areas, psychological safety and evaluative judgement, to provide practical insights for item refinement. The provisional instrument was revised, using an iterative process, incorporating findings from usability testing, psychometric testing and parallel qualitative research and foundational research.

RESULTS

Thirty-six videos involved diverse health professionals across medicine, nursing and physiotherapy. Administering the provisional instrument generated 174 data sets. Following refinements, the FQI contained 25 items, clustered into five domains characterising core concepts underpinning quality feedback: set the scene, analyse performance, plan improvements, foster learner agency, and foster psychological safety.

CONCLUSIONS

The FQI describes practical, empirically-informed ways for educators to foster quality, learner-centred feedback discussions. The explicit descriptions offer guidance for educators and provide a foundation for the systematic analysis of the influence of specific educator behaviours on learner outcomes.

Feedback in clinical settings: Nursing students' perceptions at the district hospital in the southern part of Namibia

Background

Feedback was the backbone of educational interventions in clinical settings. However, it was generally misunderstood and demanding to convey out effectively. Nursing students were not confident and did not feel free to practise clinical skills during practical placements because of the nature of the feedback they received whilst in these placements. Moreover, they experienced feedback as a barrier to completing practical workbooks.

Objective

The purpose of this article was to report on a qualitative study, which explored nursing students’ perceptions of the feedback they received in clinical settings, at a district hospital.

Method

This study was conducted at a district hospital located in southern Namibia. An explorative qualitative design with an interpretivist perspective was followed. A total of 11 nursing students from two training institutions were recruited by purposive sampling and were interviewed individually. All interviews were audio recorded with a digital voice recorder followed by verbatim transcriptions, with the participants’ permission. Thereafter, data were analysed manually by qualitative content analysis.

Results

Themes that emerged as findings of this study are feedback is perceived as a teaching and learning process in clinical settings; participants perceived the different nature of feedback in clinical settings; participants perceived personal and interpersonal implications of feedback and there were strategies to improve feedback in clinical settings.

Conclusion

Nursing students appreciated the feedback they received in clinical settings, despite the challenges related to group feedback and the emotional reactions it provoked. Nursing students should be prepared to be more receptive to the feedback conveyed in clinical settings.

Exploring how differently patients and clinical tutors see the same consultation: building evidence for inclusion of real patient feedback in medical education

BACKGROUND

Undergraduate medical education recognises that patient feedback is potentially valuable for student learning and development as a component of multi-source feedback. However greater exploration of how patient feedback perspectives differ to clinical educators is required for curriculum development and improving student feedback literacy. This study aimed to determine how two sources of feedback, patients and clinical tutors, compare on the same patient-centred, interpersonal criteria.

METHODS

A patient feedback instrument designed for the undergraduate medical education setting was used to compare patients' feedback with clinical tutors' feedback following a student-patient consultation in the learning context. Assessments from 222 learning consultations involving 40 medical students were collected. Descriptive statistics for tutors and patients for each question were calculated and correlations between patient and tutor were explored using Spearman's rank-order correlation. Mixed effects ordered logistic regression was used to compare each question with an overall rating for tutor and patients in addition to comparing patient with tutor ratings.

RESULTS

Clinical tutor and patient assessments had a weak but significant positive correlation in all areas except questions related to respect and concern. When making judgements compared with overall assessment, patients' ratings of respect, concern, communication and being understood in the consultation have a greater effect. After eliminating the effect of generally higher ratings by patients compared with tutors using comparative ordered logistic regression, patients rated students relatively less competent in areas of personal interaction.

CONCLUSION

This study provides insight about patient feedback, which is required to continue improving the use and acceptability of this multisource feedback to students as a valuable component of their social learning environment. We have revealed the different perspective-specific judgement that patients bring to feedback. This finding contributes to building respect for patient feedback through greater understanding of the elements of consultations for which patients can discriminate performance.

Analysis of Supervisors' Feedback to Residents on Communicator, Collaborator, and Professional Roles During Case Discussions

BACKGROUND

Literature examining the feedback supervisors give to residents during case discussions in the realms of communication, collaboration, and professional roles (intrinsic roles) focuses on analyses of written feedback and self-reporting.

OBJECTIVES

We quantified how much of the supervisors' verbal feedback time targeted residents' intrinsic roles and how well feedback time was aligned with the role targeted by each case. We analyzed the educational goals of this feedback. We assessed whether feedback content differed depending on whether the residents implied or explicitly expressed a need for particular feedback.

METHODS

This was a mixed-methods study conducted from 2017 to 2019. We created scripted cases for radiology and internal medicine residents to present to supervisors, then analyzed the feedback given both qualitatively and quantitatively. The cases were designed to highlight the CanMEDS intrinsic roles of communicator, collaborator, and professional.

RESULTS

Radiologists (n = 15) spent 22% of case discussions providing feedback on intrinsic roles (48% aligned): 28% when the case targeted the communicator role, 14% for collaborator, and 27% for professional. Internists (n = 15) spent 70% of discussions on intrinsic roles (56% aligned): 66% for communicator, 73% for collaborator, and 72% for professional. Radiologists' goals were to offer advice (66%), reflections (21%), and agreements (7%). Internists offered advice (41%), reflections (40%), and clarifying questions (10%). We saw no consistent effects when residents explicitly requested feedback on an intrinsic role.

CONCLUSIONS

Case discussions represent frequent opportunities for substantial feedback on intrinsic roles, largely aligned with the clinical case. Supervisors predominantly offered monologues of advice and agreements.

Psychological safety in feedback: What does it look like and how can educators work with learners to foster it?

CONTEXT

Feedback conversations play a central role in health professions workplace learning. However, learners face a dilemma: if they engage in productive learning behaviours (such as asking questions, raising difficulties, offering opinions or contesting ideas), they risk exposing their limitations or offending the educator. This highlights the importance of psychological safety in encouraging learners to candidly engage in interactive dialogue and the co-construction of knowledge. Previous research has recommended that building safety, trust or an educational alliance is key to productive feedback encounters. Yet it is unclear how to translate this into practice. Hence our research question was: What does psychological safety look like in workplace feedback and how can educators work with learners to foster it?

METHODS

We analysed 36 videos of routine formal feedback episodes in clinical practice involving diverse health professionals. A psychologically safe learning environment was inferred when learners progressively disclosed information and engaged in productive learning behaviours during the conversation. We used thematic analysis to identify associated educator strategies, which seemed to promote psychological safety.

RESULTS

Four themes were identified: (a) setting the scene for dialogue and candour; (b) educator as ally; (c) a continuing improvement orientation, and (d) encouraging interactive dialogue. Educators approaches captured within these themes, seemed to foster a psychologically safe environment by conveying a focus on learning, and demonstrating respect and support to learners.

CONCLUSIONS

This study builds on claims regarding the importance of psychological safety in feedback by clarifying what psychological safety in workplace feedback conversations might look like and identifying associated educator approaches. The results may offer educators practical ways they could work with learners to encourage candid dialogue focused on improving performance.

Effect of face-to-face verbal feedback compared with no or alternative feedback on the objective workplace task performance of health professionals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Verbal face-to-face feedback on clinical task performance is a fundamental component of health professions education. Experts argue that feedback is critical for performance improvement, but the evidence is limited. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the effect of face-to-face verbal feedback from a health professional, compared with alternative or no feedback, on the objective workplace task performance of another health professional.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched the full holdings of Ovid MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO up to 1 February 2019 and searched references of included studies. Two authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal. Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials investigating the effect of feedback, in which health professionals were randomised to individual verbal face-to-face feedback compared with no feedback or alternative feedback and available as full-text publications in English. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach. For feedback compared with no feedback, outcome data from included studies were pooled using a random effects model.

RESULTS

In total, 26 trials met the inclusion criteria, involving 2307 participants. For the effect of verbal face-to-face feedback on performance compared with no feedback, when studies at high risk of bias were excluded, eight studies involving 392 health professionals were included in a meta-analysis: the standardised mean difference (SMD) was 0.7 (95% CI 0.37 to 1.03; p<0.001) in favour of feedback. The calculated SMD prediction interval was -0.06 to 1.46. For feedback compared with alternative feedback, studies could not be pooled due to substantial design and intervention heterogeneity. All included studies were summarised, and key factors likely to influence performance were identified including components within feedback interventions, instruction and practice opportunities.

CONCLUSIONS

Verbal face-to-face feedback in the health professions may result in a moderate to large improvement in workplace task performance, compared with no feedback. However, the quality of evidence was low, primarily due to risk of bias and publication bias. Further research is needed. In particular, we found a lack of high-quality trials that clearly reported key components likely to influence performance.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017081796.