Glover Takahashi S1, Dube R2
1University of Toronto, PostMD Education & Centre for Faculty Development, Toronto, Canada, 2University of Toronto, Department of Anesthesia, Toronto, Canada
Background: While feedback is central to effective health professions education, it is repeatedly viewed by both learners and faculty as unsatisfactory. Much has been written about the need for, and the mechanics of feedback. Recent work suggests feedback may need to be re-conceptualized to be less frequent but more effective, and welcomed by the receiver within the context of a constructive relationship and a culture of continuous learning and improvement.
Purpose: To determine if we could improve the culture of feedback using a multi-method co-learning approach targeting local challenges with feedback would be effective in improving competence in giving and receiving feedback across multiple postgraduate programs at our institution.
Methods: We implemented a multi-methods intervention to create capability for feedback at multiple postgraduate programs at our institution. We utilized a co-learning approach to build shared skills and knowledge in faculty and residents. All elements of our intervention were designed for concurrent faculty and resident audiences, created with input from a resident or fellow, and delivered by a faculty-trainee pair. The intervention included four elements: workshops delivering key content about feedback and coaching to mixed resident-faculty audiences; the development of a grant competition for seed funding to support initiatives targeting local challenges with feedback; a symposium for local trainee and faculty medical educational leaders on feedback; and an online resource bank.
Results: The workshop portion of our intervention was delivered on seven occasions, to mixed resident-faculty audiences. Cases reflecting local challenges with feedback were solicited from faculty and residents prior to the workshops. These were debated by the mixed audience, resulting in rich discussion. The grant competition program funded five initiatives developed by faculty-resident pairs. In the post-intervention focus group and survey evaluations, co-learning was seen as integral to the program's success. The symposium was attended by over 100 participants, including residents, attending physicians, and other health professionals. Topics covered by the keynote speaker and five panelists included video playback to support feedback, coaching, relationship-centred feedback, and CBME implementation. The importance of the relationship between the faculty and trainee was considered a take-away lesson for one-third of participants.
Conclusion(s): Key lessons from this case study highlight: the value of inventory of program needs for improved culture of feedback; the benefits of concurrent developmental activities that includes faculty and learners, the benefits of flexibility in educational delivery; the need for longitudinal mentorship of learners and faculty; and the positive potential impact of multi-level, systems approach that applies an integrated relationship-centred approach to building individual, program and systems capacity for effective feedback.
Implications: Further evaluation of the impact of the co-learning approach utilized in this intervention on the feedback process is underway. We aim to expand and disseminate our intervention by engaging faculty and resident medical education leaders in its delivery at additional postgraduate programs at our institution.
Keywords: Feedback, coaching
Funding acknowledgements: Funded by the operating budget and an unrestricted educational grant from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
Purpose: To determine if we could improve the culture of feedback using a multi-method co-learning approach targeting local challenges with feedback would be effective in improving competence in giving and receiving feedback across multiple postgraduate programs at our institution.
Methods: We implemented a multi-methods intervention to create capability for feedback at multiple postgraduate programs at our institution. We utilized a co-learning approach to build shared skills and knowledge in faculty and residents. All elements of our intervention were designed for concurrent faculty and resident audiences, created with input from a resident or fellow, and delivered by a faculty-trainee pair. The intervention included four elements: workshops delivering key content about feedback and coaching to mixed resident-faculty audiences; the development of a grant competition for seed funding to support initiatives targeting local challenges with feedback; a symposium for local trainee and faculty medical educational leaders on feedback; and an online resource bank.
Results: The workshop portion of our intervention was delivered on seven occasions, to mixed resident-faculty audiences. Cases reflecting local challenges with feedback were solicited from faculty and residents prior to the workshops. These were debated by the mixed audience, resulting in rich discussion. The grant competition program funded five initiatives developed by faculty-resident pairs. In the post-intervention focus group and survey evaluations, co-learning was seen as integral to the program's success. The symposium was attended by over 100 participants, including residents, attending physicians, and other health professionals. Topics covered by the keynote speaker and five panelists included video playback to support feedback, coaching, relationship-centred feedback, and CBME implementation. The importance of the relationship between the faculty and trainee was considered a take-away lesson for one-third of participants.
Conclusion(s): Key lessons from this case study highlight: the value of inventory of program needs for improved culture of feedback; the benefits of concurrent developmental activities that includes faculty and learners, the benefits of flexibility in educational delivery; the need for longitudinal mentorship of learners and faculty; and the positive potential impact of multi-level, systems approach that applies an integrated relationship-centred approach to building individual, program and systems capacity for effective feedback.
Implications: Further evaluation of the impact of the co-learning approach utilized in this intervention on the feedback process is underway. We aim to expand and disseminate our intervention by engaging faculty and resident medical education leaders in its delivery at additional postgraduate programs at our institution.
Keywords: Feedback, coaching
Funding acknowledgements: Funded by the operating budget and an unrestricted educational grant from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
Topic: Education: methods of teaching & learning
Ethics approval required: No
Institution: University of Toronto
Ethics committee: Faculty of Medicine
Reason not required: research ethics not required for program evaluation
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
