Are All Competencies Equal in the Eyes of Residents? A Multicenter Study of Emergency Medicine Residents' Interest in Feedback

The integrative feedback tool: assessing a novel feedback tool among emergency medicine residents

OBJECTIVE

Feedback is critical to the growth of learners. However, feedback quality can be variable in practice. Most feedback tools are generic, with few targeting emergency medicine. We created a feedback tool designed for emergency medicine residents, and this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of this tool.

METHODS

This was a single-center, prospective cohort study comparing feedback quality before and after introducing a novel feedback tool. Residents and faculty completed a survey after each shift assessing feedback quality, feedback time, and the number of feedback episodes. Feedback quality was assessed using a composite score from seven questions, which were each scored 1 to 5 points (minimum total score, 7 points; maximum, 35 points). Preintervention and postintervention data were analyzed using a mixed-effects model that took into account the correlation of random effects between study participants.

RESULTS

Residents completed 182 surveys and faculty members completed 158 surveys. The use of the tool was associated with improved consistency in the summative score of effective feedback attributes as assessed by residents (P=0.040) but not by faculty (P=0.259). However, most of the individual scores for attributes of good feedback did not reach statistical significance. With the tool, residents perceived that faculty spent more time providing feedback (P=0.040) and that the delivery of feedback was more ongoing throughout the shift (P=0.020). Faculty felt that the tool allowed for more ongoing feedback (P=0.002), with no perceived increase in the time spent delivering feedback (P=0.833).

CONCLUSION

The use of a dedicated tool may help educators provide more meaningful and frequent feedback without impacting the perceived required time needed to provide feedback.

Relationship Between Gender, Training Level and Goal Orientation Achievement Motivation: Implications for Learners and Faculty

PURPOSE

Achievement goal orientation (GO) theory describes Mastery (M), one's intrinsic drive for competency for the sake of competency, and performance approach (PAP), a drive for competency by displaying competency, which are both adaptive. In learners motivated by performance avoid (PAV), showing competency by avoiding appearing incompetent dominates (maladaptive). The aim of this study was to determine differences in GO by gender and training (PGY) level.

METHODS

A prospective, multi-institutional cohort of general surgery trainees participated in a cross-sectional study (2020-2021). Participants completed a 10-item instrument (the Goal Orientation in Surgical Trainees, GO-ST) measured on a 5-pointLikert scale (1 = never,3 = weekly,5 = daily). Student's t-tests and ANOVA F-test were used as appropriate.

RESULTS

A total of 144/164 trainees participated (87.8%). The sample was 40.0%(n = 56) female and 57.9%(n = 81) male; 21.3%(n = 30) were PGY1, 22.0%(n = 31) PGY2, 24.8%(n = 35) PGY3, 18.4%(n = 26) PGY4, 13.5%(n = 19) PGY5. There were no significant differences in mean scale scores by gender for Mastery (3.3 vs 3.5; p = 0.17), or PAP (3.7 vs 3.5; p = 0.10), but mean PAV scores were significantly higher for females (3.6 vs 3.3; p = 0.04). While there were no significant differences in mean Mastery and PAP scale scores by training level (p = 0.44; p = 0.31), there was a significant difference in PAV scores (p < 0.01). The frequency of PAV feelings decreased over 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Only PAV motivation differed by gender and training level. Understanding the psychology of motivation with this framework can aid both residents and programs in re-focusing on more adaptive learning strategies and supporting trainees in their transition to master surgeons.

Pilot project to assess and improve neurosurgery resident and staff perception of feedback to residents for self-improvement goal formation

OBJECTIVE

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has pushed for more frequent and comprehensive feedback for residents during their training, but there is scant evidence for how neurosurgery residents view the current feedback system as it applies to providing information for self-improvement and goal formation. The authors sought to assess neurosurgery resident and staff perceptions of the current resident feedback system in providing specific, meaningful, achievable, realistic, and timely (SMART) goals. The authors then created a pilot project to improve the most unfavorably viewed aspect of the feedback system.

METHODS

The authors conducted an anonymous survey of neurosurgery residents and staff at an academic medical institution to assess SMART goals for resident feedback and used the results to create a pilot intervention to address the most unfavorably viewed aspect of the feedback system. The authors then conducted a postintervention survey to see if perceptions had improved for the target of the intervention.

RESULTS

Neurosurgery residents and staff completed an anonymous online survey, for which the results indicated that resident feedback was not occurring in a timely manner. The authors created a simple anonymous feedback form. The form was distributed monthly to neurosurgery residents, neurosurgical staff, and nurses, and the results were reported monthly to each resident for 6 months. A postintervention survey was then administered, and the results indicated that the opinions of the neurosurgery residents and staff on the timeliness of resident feedback had changed from a negative to a nonnegative opinion (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The required ACGME feedback methods may not be providing adequate feedback for goal formation for self-improvement for neurosurgery residents. Simple interventions, such as anonymous feedback questionnaires, can improve neurosurgery resident and staff perception of feedback to residents for self-improvement and goal formation.

Critical Appraisal of Emergency Medicine Educational Research: The Best Publications of 2016

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to critically appraise the emergency medicine (EM) medical education literature published in 2016 and review the highest-quality quantitative and qualitative studies.

METHODS

A search of the English language literature in 2016 querying MEDLINE, Scopus, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and PsychInfo identified 510 papers related to medical education in EM. Two reviewers independently screened all of the publications using previously established exclusion criteria. The 25 top-scoring quantitative studies based on methodology and all six qualitative studies were scored by all reviewers using selected scoring criteria that have been adapted from previous installments. The top-scoring articles were highlighted and trends in medical education research were described.

RESULTS

Seventy-five manuscripts met inclusion criteria and were scored. Eleven quantitative and one qualitative papers were the highest scoring and are summarized in this article.

CONCLUSION

This annual critical appraisal series highlights the best EM education research articles published in 2016.

Bridging the gap to effective feedback in residency training: perceptions of trainees and teachers

BACKGROUND

Clinical feedback is an important part of residency training, yet literature suggests this complex interaction is not completely understood. In particular, little is known about what resident versus attending physicians expect as feedback. This study investigates this gap in knowledge by examining differences in interactions that residents and attendings view as feedback.

METHODS

Surveys containing sample clinical feedback scenarios were distributed to residents and attending physicians in emergency medicine and general surgery at a large academic medical center. Respondents were asked to decide whether useful feedback was provided in each scenario, and responses were compared between the two groups. Continuous features were summarized with medians, interquartile ranges (IQRs), and ranges; categorical features were summarized with frequency counts and percentages. Comparisons of features between residents and attendings were evaluated using Wilcoxon rank sum, chi-square, and Fisher exact tests. Statistical analyses were performed using version 9.4 of the SAS software package (SAS Institute, Inc.; Cary, NC). All tests were two-sided and p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Seventy-two individuals responded to the survey out of approximately 110 invitations sent (65%), including 35 (49%) residents and 37 (51%) attendings. Of 35 residents, 31 indicated their level of training, which included 13 (42%) PGY-1, 9 (29%) PGY-2, 6 (19%) PGY-3, and 3 (10%) PGY-4, respectively. Of 37 attendings, 34 indicated the number of years since completion of residency or last fellowship, at a median of 9 years (IQR 4-14; range 1-31). No significant difference was found in residents' and attendings' perceptions of what constituted feedback in the sample scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

While this study did not find a statistical difference in perception of feedback between residents and attendings, additional factors should be considered when investigating perceived feedback deficiencies. Further research is needed to better understand and improve the clinical feedback process.