"Good, Better, How" Educational Intervention: Potential Benefits of Utilizing Feedback in General Surgery; Sequential Mixed-Methods Study of an Educational Intervention.

IF 1.8 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Advances in Medical Education and Practice Pub Date : 2025-03-12 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/AMEP.S487038
Mark Guadagnoli, Whitney Elks, Kencie Ely, Abigail W Cheng, Kavita Batra, Charles Randolph St Hill
{"title":"\"Good, Better, How\" Educational Intervention: Potential Benefits of Utilizing Feedback in General Surgery; Sequential Mixed-Methods Study of an Educational Intervention.","authors":"Mark Guadagnoli, Whitney Elks, Kencie Ely, Abigail W Cheng, Kavita Batra, Charles Randolph St Hill","doi":"10.2147/AMEP.S487038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Feedback is acknowledged as a necessity for effective learning and performance improvement. However, it has been shown to have variable effects on subsequent performance. This study introduces the \"Good, Better, How\" (GBH) framework for providing and receiving effective feedback in surgical training.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Surgery residents, fellows and faculty at a single institution completed pre- and post-educational intervention surveys, attended a GBH educational intervention, and participated in focus groups. Survey results were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Survey analysis showed significant (p<0.05) positive changes from using the GBH method, and rated the GBH method very favorably (average score: 8.03/10), suggesting a positive paradigm shift from previous feedback methods used in surgical education. Dominant focus group themes included phrases such as \"positive culture\", \"systematic\", and \"useful\".</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite implementation challenges, the GBH feedback system shows promise for enhancing surgical education and may contribute to improved patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":47404,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Medical Education and Practice","volume":"16 ","pages":"381-398"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11910930/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Medical Education and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S487038","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Feedback is acknowledged as a necessity for effective learning and performance improvement. However, it has been shown to have variable effects on subsequent performance. This study introduces the "Good, Better, How" (GBH) framework for providing and receiving effective feedback in surgical training.

Methods: Surgery residents, fellows and faculty at a single institution completed pre- and post-educational intervention surveys, attended a GBH educational intervention, and participated in focus groups. Survey results were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively.

Results: Survey analysis showed significant (p<0.05) positive changes from using the GBH method, and rated the GBH method very favorably (average score: 8.03/10), suggesting a positive paradigm shift from previous feedback methods used in surgical education. Dominant focus group themes included phrases such as "positive culture", "systematic", and "useful".

Conclusion: Despite implementation challenges, the GBH feedback system shows promise for enhancing surgical education and may contribute to improved patient outcomes.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Advances in Medical Education and Practice
Advances in Medical Education and Practice EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
189
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信