Premium
Implementing feedback cards in core clerkships
Author(s) -
Kogan Jennifer R,
Shea Judy A
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
medical education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.776
H-Index - 138
eISSN - 1365-2923
pISSN - 0308-0110
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03158.x
Subject(s) - formative assessment , medical education , peer feedback , context (archaeology) , specialty , medicine , report card , psychology , computer science , family medicine , mathematics education , pedagogy , paleontology , biology
Context Historically, medical students report receiving little formative feedback. Reports of feedback processes are generally limited to a single course or specialty. There is a paucity of research detailing feedback across the core clerkship year. Objectives We aimed to determine the feasibility of a cross‐clerkship feedback encounter card system, describe the content of feedback requested and received during the core clerkships, and examine student satisfaction with the feedback card system. Methods Students ( n = 127) enrolled in six mandatory clerkships were required to complete feedback cards, twice weekly during inpatient rotations and once weekly during outpatient rotations. Students checked‐off areas in which they wanted to receive feedback and gave the card to a supervisor, who indicated areas in which feedback was provided. Descriptive statistics summarised completeness and feedback content. A two‐factor anova estimated differences between students’ perceptions of feedback usefulness pre‐ and post‐feedback card implementation. Results A total of 5369 feedback cards were completed in 2006 (78% of the target). Feedback about presentation skills (57% of cards) and fund of knowledge (48% of cards) were most frequently requested. On approximately 80% of the cards, students received feedback in the area(s) they had requested. During each clerkship, students requested feedback in most areas at least once. The mean rating of feedback usefulness was significantly lower after feedback card implementation (mean 3.6, standard deviation [SD] 1.1) than before implementation (mean 3.7, SD 1.0) ( F = 11.022, P < 0.001, effect size = − 17). Conclusions Despite evidence that students received feedback multiple times, satisfaction was low. Research identifying factors that improve satisfaction with feedback during clinical training is needed.