美国住院医师和主治医师对反馈和教学的看法:一项定性研究

IF 9.3 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
M. Matthiesen, Michael S. Kelly, Kristina Dzara, A. S. Begin
{"title":"美国住院医师和主治医师对反馈和教学的看法:一项定性研究","authors":"M. Matthiesen, Michael S. Kelly, Kristina Dzara, A. S. Begin","doi":"10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose Residents and attendings agree on the importance of feedback to resident education. However, while faculty report providing frequent feedback, residents often do not perceive receiving it, particularly in the context of teaching. Given the nuanced differences between feedback and teaching, we aimed to explore resident and attending perceptions of feedback and teaching in the clinical setting. Methods We conducted a qualitative study of internal medicine residents and attendings from December 2018 through March 2019 at the Massachusetts General Hospital to investigate perceptions of feedback in the inpatient clinical setting. Residents and faculty were recruited to participate in focus groups. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis to explore perspectives and barriers to feedback provision and identification. Results Five focus groups included 33 total participants in 3 attending (n=20) and 2 resident (n=13) groups. Thematic analysis of focus group transcripts identified 7 themes which organized into 3 thematic categories: (1) disentangling feedback and teaching, (2) delivering high-quality feedback, and (3) experiencing feedback in the group setting. Residents and attendings highlighted important themes in discriminating feedback from teaching. They indicated that while feedback is reactive in response to an action or behavior, teaching is proactive and oriented toward future endeavors. Conclusion Confusion between the critical concepts of teaching and feedback may be minimized by allowing them to each have their intended impact, either in response to prior events or aimed toward those yet to take place.","PeriodicalId":46098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Medical residents and attending physicians’ perceptions of feedback and teaching in the United States: a qualitative study\",\"authors\":\"M. Matthiesen, Michael S. Kelly, Kristina Dzara, A. S. Begin\",\"doi\":\"10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose Residents and attendings agree on the importance of feedback to resident education. However, while faculty report providing frequent feedback, residents often do not perceive receiving it, particularly in the context of teaching. Given the nuanced differences between feedback and teaching, we aimed to explore resident and attending perceptions of feedback and teaching in the clinical setting. Methods We conducted a qualitative study of internal medicine residents and attendings from December 2018 through March 2019 at the Massachusetts General Hospital to investigate perceptions of feedback in the inpatient clinical setting. Residents and faculty were recruited to participate in focus groups. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis to explore perspectives and barriers to feedback provision and identification. Results Five focus groups included 33 total participants in 3 attending (n=20) and 2 resident (n=13) groups. Thematic analysis of focus group transcripts identified 7 themes which organized into 3 thematic categories: (1) disentangling feedback and teaching, (2) delivering high-quality feedback, and (3) experiencing feedback in the group setting. Residents and attendings highlighted important themes in discriminating feedback from teaching. They indicated that while feedback is reactive in response to an action or behavior, teaching is proactive and oriented toward future endeavors. Conclusion Confusion between the critical concepts of teaching and feedback may be minimized by allowing them to each have their intended impact, either in response to prior events or aimed toward those yet to take place.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46098,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的居民和与会者一致认为反馈对居民教育的重要性。然而,尽管教师报告经常提供反馈,但居民往往没有意识到收到了反馈,尤其是在教学环境中。鉴于反馈和教学之间的细微差异,我们旨在探索住院医师和主治医师在临床环境中对反馈和教学的看法。方法我们对2018年12月至2019年3月在马萨诸塞州总医院的内科住院医师和就诊人员进行了一项定性研究,以调查住院患者临床环境中对反馈的看法。居民和教职员工被招募参加焦点小组。使用主题分析法对数据进行分析,以探讨提供和识别反馈的视角和障碍。结果5个重点小组共有33名参与者,分为3个参加小组(n=20)和2个常驻小组(n=13)。焦点小组成绩单的主题分析确定了7个主题,分为3个主题类别:(1)理清反馈和教学,(2)提供高质量的反馈,以及(3)在小组环境中体验反馈。居民和与会者强调了区分教学反馈的重要主题。他们指出,虽然反馈是对行动或行为的反应,但教学是积极主动的,面向未来的努力。结论教学和反馈的关键概念之间的混淆可以通过允许它们各自产生预期的影响来最小化,无论是对先前事件的回应还是针对尚未发生的事件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Medical residents and attending physicians’ perceptions of feedback and teaching in the United States: a qualitative study
Purpose Residents and attendings agree on the importance of feedback to resident education. However, while faculty report providing frequent feedback, residents often do not perceive receiving it, particularly in the context of teaching. Given the nuanced differences between feedback and teaching, we aimed to explore resident and attending perceptions of feedback and teaching in the clinical setting. Methods We conducted a qualitative study of internal medicine residents and attendings from December 2018 through March 2019 at the Massachusetts General Hospital to investigate perceptions of feedback in the inpatient clinical setting. Residents and faculty were recruited to participate in focus groups. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis to explore perspectives and barriers to feedback provision and identification. Results Five focus groups included 33 total participants in 3 attending (n=20) and 2 resident (n=13) groups. Thematic analysis of focus group transcripts identified 7 themes which organized into 3 thematic categories: (1) disentangling feedback and teaching, (2) delivering high-quality feedback, and (3) experiencing feedback in the group setting. Residents and attendings highlighted important themes in discriminating feedback from teaching. They indicated that while feedback is reactive in response to an action or behavior, teaching is proactive and oriented toward future endeavors. Conclusion Confusion between the critical concepts of teaching and feedback may be minimized by allowing them to each have their intended impact, either in response to prior events or aimed toward those yet to take place.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
32
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions aims to provide readers the state-of-the art practical information on the educational evaluation for health professions so that to increase the quality of undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education. It is specialized in educational evaluation including adoption of measurement theory to medical health education, promotion of high stakes examination such as national licensing examinations, improvement of nationwide or international programs of education, computer-based testing, computerized adaptive testing, and medical health regulatory bodies. Its field comprises a variety of professions that address public medical health as following but not limited to: Care workers Dental hygienists Dental technicians Dentists Dietitians Emergency medical technicians Health educators Medical record technicians Medical technologists Midwives Nurses Nursing aides Occupational therapists Opticians Oriental medical doctors Oriental medicine dispensers Oriental pharmacists Pharmacists Physical therapists Physicians Prosthetists and Orthotists Radiological technologists Rehabilitation counselor Sanitary technicians Speech-language therapists.
×
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