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

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 246-256
Author(s):  
Alexandre Lafleur ◽  
Luc Côté ◽  
Holly O. Witteman
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Case ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Educational Goals ◽  
Written Feedback ◽  
Professional Roles ◽  
Internal Medicine Residents ◽  
Intrinsic Roles ◽  
Case Discussions ◽  
Feedback Content ◽  
Feedback Time

ABSTRACT 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.

scholarly journals Innovációs lehetőségek a medicinában: 3D tervezési és 3D nyomtatási lehetőségek a felnőtt szív- és mellkassebészeti betegellátásban. Magyarországi tapasztalatok

2019 ◽  
Vol 160 (50) ◽  
pp. 1967-1975 ◽  
Author(s):  
János Imre Barabás ◽  
Áron Kristóf Ghimessy ◽  
Ferenc Rényi-Vámos ◽  
Ákos Kocsis ◽  
László Agócs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Case ◽  
Technology Development ◽  
3D Models ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Anatomical Models ◽  
Efficient Communication ◽  
The Common ◽  
Case Discussions ◽  
Procedural Planning ◽  
Surgery Department

Abstract: Use of 3D planning and 3D printing is expanding in healthcare. One of the common applications is the creation of anatomical models for the surgical procedure from DICOM files. These patient-specific models are used for multiple purposes, including visualization of complex anatomical situations, simulation of surgical procedures, patient education and facilitating communication between the different disciplines during clinical case discussions. Cardiac and thoracic surgical applications of this technology development include the use of patient-specific 3D models for exploration of ventricle and aorta function and surgical procedural planning in oncology. The 3D virtual and printed models provide a new visualization perspective for the surgeons and more efficient communication between the different clinical disciplines. The 3D project was started at the Semmelweis University with the cooperation of the Thoracic Surgery Department of the National Institute of Oncology in 2018. The authors want to share their experiences in 3D designed medical tools. Orv Hetil. 2019; 160(50): 1967–1975.

Comparison of faculty assessment and students’ self-assessment of performance during clinical case discussions in a pharmacotherapy capstone course

2017 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara A. Wettergreen ◽  
Jason Brunner ◽  
Sunny A. Linnebur ◽  
Laura M. Borgelt ◽  
Joseph J. Saseen
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Case ◽  
Self Assessment ◽  
Faculty Assessment ◽  
Capstone Course ◽  
Assessment Of Performance ◽  
Case Discussions

scholarly journals Can clinical case discussions foster clinical reasoning skills in undergraduate medical education? A randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. e025973 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Weidenbusch ◽  
Benedikt Lenzer ◽  
Maximilian Sailer ◽  
Christian Strobel ◽  
Raphael Kunisch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Learning Outcomes ◽  
Clinical Reasoning ◽  
Clinical Case ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Case Discussions ◽  
Reasoning Skills ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Clinical Reasoning Skills ◽  
Subjective Learning ◽  
Case Based

ObjectiveFostering clinical reasoning is a mainstay of medical education. Based on the clinicopathological conferences, we propose a case-based peer teaching approach called clinical case discussions (CCDs) to promote the respective skills in medical students. This study compares the effectiveness of different CCD formats with varying degrees of social interaction in fostering clinical reasoning.Design, setting, participantsA single-centre randomised controlled trial with a parallel design was conducted at a German university. Study participants (N=106) were stratified and tested regarding their clinical reasoning skills right after CCD participation and 2 weeks later.InterventionParticipants worked within a live discussion group (Live-CCD), a group watching recordings of the live discussions (Video-CCD) or a group working with printed cases (Paper-Cases). The presentation of case information followed an admission-discussion-summary sequence.Primary and secondary outcome measuresClinical reasoning skills were measured with a knowledge application test addressing the students’ conceptual, strategic and conditional knowledge. Additionally, subjective learning outcomes were assessed.ResultsWith respect to learning outcomes, the Live-CCD group displayed the best results, followed by Video-CCD and Paper-Cases, F(2,87)=27.07, p<0.001, partial η2=0.384. No difference was found between Live-CCD and Video-CCD groups in the delayed post-test; however, both outperformed the Paper-Cases group, F(2,87)=30.91, p<0.001, partial η2=0.415. Regarding subjective learning outcomes, the Live-CCD received significantly better ratings than the other formats, F(2,85)=13.16, p<0.001, partial η2=0.236.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that the CCD approach is an effective and sustainable clinical reasoning teaching resource for medical students. Subjective learning outcomes underline the importance of learner (inter)activity in the acquisition of clinical reasoning skills in the context of case-based learning. Higher efficacy of more interactive formats can be attributed to positive effects of collaborative learning. Future research should investigate how the Live-CCD format can further be improved and how video-based CCDs can be enhanced through instructional support.

scholarly journals The Quality of Written Feedback by Attendings of Internal Medicine Residents

2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (7) ◽  
pp. 973-978 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey L Jackson ◽  
Cynthia Kay ◽  
Wilkins C Jackson ◽  
Michael Frank
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Written Feedback ◽  
Internal Medicine Residents

scholarly journals Beyond “Read More”: An Intervention to Improve Faculty Written Feedback to Learners

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 468-471
Author(s):  
Amy B. Zelenski ◽  
Jessica S. Tischendorf ◽  
Michael Kessler ◽  
Scott Saunders ◽  
Melissa M. MacDonald ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
A Priori ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Written Feedback ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Written Comments ◽  
Quality Feedback ◽  
New Information ◽  
Feedback Content ◽  
Simple Feedback

ABSTRACT Background High-quality feedback is necessary for learners' development. It is most effective when focused on behavior and should also provide learners with specific next steps and desired outcomes. Many faculty struggle to provide this high-quality feedback. Objective To improve the quality of written feedback by faculty in a department of medicine, we conducted a 1-hour session using a novel framework based on education literature, individual review of previously written feedback, and deliberate practice in writing comments. Methods Sessions were conducted between August 2015 and June 2018. Participants were faculty members who teach medical students, residents, and/or fellows. To measure the effects of our intervention, we surveyed participants and used an a priori coding scheme to determine how feedback comments changed after the session. Results Faculty from 7 divisions participated (n = 157). We surveyed 139 participants postsession and 55 (40%) responded. Fifty-three participants (96%) reported learning new information. To more thoroughly assess behavioral changes, we analyzed 5976 feedback comments for students, residents, and fellows written by 22 randomly selected participants before the session and compared these to 5653 comments written by the same participants 1 to 12 months postsession. Analysis demonstrated improved feedback content; comments providing nonspecific next steps decreased, and comments providing specific next steps, reasons why, and outcomes increased. Conclusions Combining the learning of a simple feedback framework with an immediate review of written comments that individual faculty members previously provided learners led to measured improvement in written comments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document