Exploring the Quality of Narrative Feedback Provided to Residents During Ambulatory Patient Care in Medicine and Surgery

Résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVES The transition to competency-based medical education (CBME) has increased the volume of residents’ assessment data; however, the quality of the narrative feedback is yet to be used as feedback-on-feedback for faculty. Our objectives were (1) to explore and compare the quality and content of narrative feedback provided to residents in medicine and surgery during ambulatory patient care and (2) to use the Deliberately Developmental Organization framework to identify strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities to improve quality of feedback within CBME. METHODS We conducted a mixed convergent methods study with residents from the Departments of Surgery (DoS; n = 7) and Medicine (DoM; n = 9) at Queen's University. We used thematic analysis and the Quality of Assessment for Learning (QuAL) tool to analyze the content and quality of narrative feedback documented in entrustable professional activities (EPAs) assessments for ambulatory care. We also examined the association between the basis of assessment, time to provide feedback, and the quality of narrative feedback. RESULTS Forty-one EPA assessments were included in the analysis. Three major themes arose from thematic analysis: Communication, Diagnostics/Management, and Next Steps. Quality of the narrative feedback varied; 46% had sufficient evidence about residents’ performance; 39% provided a suggestion for improvement; and 11% provided a connection between the suggestion and the evidence. There were significant differences between DoM and DoS in quality of feedback scores for evidence (2.1 [1.3] vs. 1.3 [1.1]; p < 0.01) and connection (0.4 [0.5] vs. 0.1 [0.3]; p = 0.04) domains of the QuAL tool. Feedback quality was not associated with the basis of assessment or time taken to provide feedback. CONCLUSION The quality of the narrative feedback provided to residents during ambulatory patient care was variable with the greatest gap in providing connections between suggestions and evidence about residents’ performance. There is a need for ongoing faculty development to improve the quality of narrative feedback provided to residents.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.