Premium
Faculty feedback that begins with resident self‐assessment: motivation is the key to success
Author(s) -
Moroz Alex,
Horlick Margaret,
Mandalaywala Neil,
T Stern David
Publication year - 2018
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/medu.13484
Subject(s) - framing (construction) , credibility , grounded theory , psychology , context (archaeology) , nonprobability sampling , medical education , data collection , constructivist grounded theory , conceptual framework , self assessment , quality (philosophy) , applied psychology , qualitative research , social psychology , medicine , population , social science , philosophy , law , environmental health , structural engineering , sociology , engineering , epistemology , political science , mathematics , biology , paleontology , statistics
Context The seeking and incorporating of feedback are necessary for continuous performance improvement in medicine. We know that beginning feedback conversations with resident self‐assessment may reduce some of the tensions experienced by faculty staff. However, we do not fully understand how residents experience feedback that begins with self‐assessment, and whether any existing theoretical frameworks can explain their experiences. Methods We conducted a constructivist grounded theory study exploring physical medicine and rehabilitation residents' experiences as they engaged in a structured self‐assessment and faculty staff feedback programme. Utilising purposive sampling, we conducted 15 individual interviews and analysed verbatim transcripts iteratively. We implemented several procedures to enhance the credibility of the findings and the protection of participants during recruitment, data collection and data analysis. After defining the themes, we reviewed a variety of existing frameworks to determine if any fitted the data. Results Residents valued self‐assessment followed by feedback ( SAFF ) and had clear ideas of what makes the process useful. Time pressures and poor feedback quality could lead to a process of ‘just going through the motions’. Motivation coloured residents' experiences, with more internalised motivation related to a more positive experience. There were no gender‐ or year of training‐related patterns. Conclusions Self‐determination theory provided the clearest lens for framing our findings and fitted into a conceptual model linking the quality of the SAFF experience and residents' motivational loci. We identified several study limitations including time in the field, evolving characteristics of the SAFF programme and the absence of faculty voices. We believe that by better understanding residents' experiences of SAFF , educators may be able to tailor the feedback process, enhance clinical performance and ultimately improve patient care.