A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 143

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 143
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 209
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3098
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 574
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 488
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: Attempt to read property "Count" on bool

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 3100

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3100
Function: _error_handler

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 574
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 488
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

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

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

J Grad Med Educ

is Director of Studies in Clinical Medicine, Lincoln College, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, and Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston Massachusetts, USA.

Published: October 2024

AI Article Synopsis

  • - Faculty sought feedback from residents to improve teaching skills, but concerns about anonymity and repercussions made it tough for residents to provide candid input, prompting a study to assess the impact of increasing anonymity and imposing time delays.
  • - From 2011 to 2017, a residency program used a new approach to gather resident feedback by promising confidentiality until residents graduated, compiling the comments for faculty review in 2019, resulting in higher reported quality and specificity of feedback.
  • - Although over 82% of faculty believed the feedback would influence their behavior, this sentiment decreased after three months, while opinions were mixed about the value of the feedback delay, with a notable percentage still feeling they could identify the residents providing the feedback.

Article Abstract

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. To examine faculty perception of the quality and content of feedback from residents after increasing anonymity and sacrificing timeliness. 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. 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%, <.001) and more negative constructive feedback (median 20.0% vs median 5.0%, <.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 (<.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. 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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11475427PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-24-00029.1DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

feedback residents
12
teaching faculty
12
feedback
11
faculty
10
residents
5
providing delayed
4
delayed in-person
4
in-person collected
4
collected feedback
4
residents teaching
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Notice

Message: fwrite(): Write of 34 bytes failed with errno=28 No space left on device

Filename: drivers/Session_files_driver.php

Line Number: 272

Backtrace:

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: session_write_close(): Failed to write session data using user defined save handler. (session.save_path: /var/lib/php/sessions)

Filename: Unknown

Line Number: 0

Backtrace: