11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Using deliberate practice framework to assess the quality of feedback in undergraduate clinical skills training

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          In this research paper we report on the quality of feedback provided in the logbooks of pre-clinical undergraduate students based on a model of ‘actionable feedback’. Feedback to clinical learners about their performance is crucial to their learning, which ultimately impacts on their development into competent clinicians. Due to students’ concerns regarding the inconsistency and quality of feedback provided by clinicians, a structured feedback improvement strategy to move feedback forward was added to the clinical skills logbook. The instrument was also extended for peer assessment. This study aims to assess the quality of feedback using the deliberate practice framework.

          Methods

          A feedback scoring system was used to retrospectively assess the quality of tutor and peer logbook feedback provided to second and third year medical students to identify deliberate practice components i.e. task, performance gap and action plan. The sample consisted of 425 second year and 600 third year feedback responses over a year.

          Results

          All three deliberate practice components were observed in the majority of the written feedback for both classes. The frequency was higher in peer (83%, 89%) than tutor logbook assessments (51%, 67%) in both classes respectively. Average tutor and peer task, gap and action feedback scores ranged from 1.84–2.07 and 1.93–2.21 respectively. The overall quality of feedback provided by the tutor and peer was moderate and less specific (average score < or = 2). The absence of the three components was noted in only 1% of the feedback responses in both 2nd and 3rd year.

          Conclusion

          This study found that adding in a feed-forward strategy to the logbooks increased the overall quality of tutor and peer feedback as the task, gap and action plans were described. Deliberate practice framework provides an objective assessment of tutor and peer feedback quality and can be used for faculty development and training. The findings from our study suggest that the ratings from the tool can also be used as guidelines to provide feedback providers with feedback on the quality of feedback they provided. This includes specifically describing a task, performance gap and providing a learning plan as feed-forward to enhance feedback given.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s12909-019-1547-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              State of the science in health professional education: effective feedback.

              Effective feedback may be defined as feedback in which information about previous performance is used to promote positive and desirable development. This can be challenging as educators must acknowledge the psychosocial needs of the recipient while ensuring that feedback is both honest and accurate. Current feedback models remain reductionist in their approach. They are embedded in the hierarchical, diagnostic endeavours of the health professions. Even when it acknowledges the importance of two-way interactions, feedback often remains an educator-driven, one-way process. An understanding of the various types of feedback and an ability to actively seek an appropriate approach may support feedback effectiveness. Facilitative rather than directive feedback enhances learning for high achievers. High-achieving recipients undertaking complex tasks may benefit from delayed feedback. It is hypothesised that such learners are supported by reducing interruptions during the task. If we accept that medical students and doctors are high achievers, we can draw on some guiding principles from a complex and rarely conclusive literature. Feedback should focus on the task rather than the individual and should be specific. It should be directly linked to personal goals. Self-assessment as a means to identify personal learning requirements has no theoretical basis. Motivated recipients benefit from challenging facilitated feedback from external sources. To achieve truly effective feedback, the health professions must nurture recipient reflection-in-action. This builds on self-monitoring informed by external feedback. An integrated approach must be developed to support a feedback culture. Early training and experience such as peer feedback may over time support the required cultural change. Opportunities to provide feedback must not be missed, including those to impart potentially powerful feedback from high-stakes assessments. Feedback must be conceptualised as a supported sequential process rather than a series of unrelated events. Only this sustained approach will maximise any effect.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                abrahamr@ukzn.ac.za
                Journal
                BMC Med Educ
                BMC Med Educ
                BMC Medical Education
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6920
                11 April 2019
                11 April 2019
                2019
                : 19
                : 105
                Affiliations
                ISNI 0000 0001 0723 4123, GRID grid.16463.36, Clinical and Professional Practice, School of Clinical Medicine, College of Health Sciences, , University of KwaZulu-Natal, ; Durban, 4000 South Africa
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1732-6616
                Article
                1547
                10.1186/s12909-019-1547-5
                6460682
                30975213
                d965045e-273d-4ec9-b20a-39bae78d6e7b
                © The Author(s). 2019

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 1 December 2018
                : 4 April 2019
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Education
                medical education,feedback,evaluation,deliberate practice,feed-forward,clinical skills
                Education
                medical education, feedback, evaluation, deliberate practice, feed-forward, clinical skills

                Comments

                Comment on this article