综合反馈工具:在急诊住院医师中评估一种新的反馈工具。

IF 1.9 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2023-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-02-16 DOI:10.15441/ceem.22.395
Katarzyna Gore, Jessen Schiebout, Gary D Peksa, Sara Hock, Rahul Patwari, Michael Gottlieb
{"title":"综合反馈工具:在急诊住院医师中评估一种新的反馈工具。","authors":"Katarzyna Gore,&nbsp;Jessen Schiebout,&nbsp;Gary D Peksa,&nbsp;Sara Hock,&nbsp;Rahul Patwari,&nbsp;Michael Gottlieb","doi":"10.15441/ceem.22.395","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Feedback is critical to the growth of learners. However, feedback quality can be variable in practice. Most feedback tools are generic, with few targeting emergency medicine. We created a feedback tool designed for emergency medicine residents, and this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of this tool.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a single-center, prospective cohort study comparing feedback quality before and after introducing a novel feedback tool. Residents and faculty completed a survey after each shift assessing feedback quality, feedback time, and the number of feedback episodes. Feedback quality was assessed using a composite score from seven questions, which were each scored 1 to 5 points (minimum total score, 7 points; maximum, 35 points). Preintervention and postintervention data were analyzed using a mixed-effects model that took into account the correlation of random effects between study participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Residents completed 182 surveys and faculty members completed 158 surveys. The use of the tool was associated with improved consistency in the summative score of effective feedback attributes as assessed by residents (P=0.040) but not by faculty (P=0.259). However, most of the individual scores for attributes of good feedback did not reach statistical significance. With the tool, residents perceived that faculty spent more time providing feedback (P=0.040) and that the delivery of feedback was more ongoing throughout the shift (P=0.020). Faculty felt that the tool allowed for more ongoing feedback (P=0.002), with no perceived increase in the time spent delivering feedback (P=0.833).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The use of a dedicated tool may help educators provide more meaningful and frequent feedback without impacting the perceived required time needed to provide feedback.</p>","PeriodicalId":10325,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/0d/6f/ceem-22-395.PMC10579731.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The integrative feedback tool: assessing a novel feedback tool among emergency medicine residents.\",\"authors\":\"Katarzyna Gore,&nbsp;Jessen Schiebout,&nbsp;Gary D Peksa,&nbsp;Sara Hock,&nbsp;Rahul Patwari,&nbsp;Michael Gottlieb\",\"doi\":\"10.15441/ceem.22.395\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Feedback is critical to the growth of learners. However, feedback quality can be variable in practice. Most feedback tools are generic, with few targeting emergency medicine. We created a feedback tool designed for emergency medicine residents, and this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of this tool.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a single-center, prospective cohort study comparing feedback quality before and after introducing a novel feedback tool. Residents and faculty completed a survey after each shift assessing feedback quality, feedback time, and the number of feedback episodes. Feedback quality was assessed using a composite score from seven questions, which were each scored 1 to 5 points (minimum total score, 7 points; maximum, 35 points). Preintervention and postintervention data were analyzed using a mixed-effects model that took into account the correlation of random effects between study participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Residents completed 182 surveys and faculty members completed 158 surveys. The use of the tool was associated with improved consistency in the summative score of effective feedback attributes as assessed by residents (P=0.040) but not by faculty (P=0.259). However, most of the individual scores for attributes of good feedback did not reach statistical significance. With the tool, residents perceived that faculty spent more time providing feedback (P=0.040) and that the delivery of feedback was more ongoing throughout the shift (P=0.020). Faculty felt that the tool allowed for more ongoing feedback (P=0.002), with no perceived increase in the time spent delivering feedback (P=0.833).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The use of a dedicated tool may help educators provide more meaningful and frequent feedback without impacting the perceived required time needed to provide feedback.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10325,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/0d/6f/ceem-22-395.PMC10579731.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15441/ceem.22.395\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/2/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15441/ceem.22.395","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:反馈对学习者的成长至关重要。然而,反馈质量在实践中可能是可变的。大多数反馈工具都是通用的,很少有针对急诊医学的。我们创建了一个为急诊住院医师设计的反馈工具,本研究旨在评估该工具的有效性。方法:这是一项单中心前瞻性队列研究,比较了引入新型反馈工具前后的反馈质量。住院医师和教员在每次轮班后完成一项调查,评估反馈质量、反馈时间和反馈次数。使用七个问题的综合得分来评估反馈质量,每个问题都得1-5分(总分最低,7分;最高,35分)。使用混合效应模型分析干预前和干预后的数据,该模型考虑了研究参与者之间随机效应的相关性。结果:居民完成了182项调查,教师完成了158项调查。该工具的使用与居民评估的有效反馈属性的总结性得分的一致性提高有关(P=0.040),但与教师评估的一致性无关(P=0.059)。然而,大多数良好反馈属性的个人得分没有达到统计显著性。使用该工具,居民认为教师花了更多的时间提供反馈(P=0.040),并且在整个轮班期间反馈的传递更加持续(P=0.020)。教师认为该工具允许更多的持续反馈(P=0.002),结论:使用专用工具可以帮助教育工作者提供更有意义和更频繁的反馈,而不会影响提供反馈所需的时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The integrative feedback tool: assessing a novel feedback tool among emergency medicine residents.

The integrative feedback tool: assessing a novel feedback tool among emergency medicine residents.

Objective: Feedback is critical to the growth of learners. However, feedback quality can be variable in practice. Most feedback tools are generic, with few targeting emergency medicine. We created a feedback tool designed for emergency medicine residents, and this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of this tool.

Methods: This was a single-center, prospective cohort study comparing feedback quality before and after introducing a novel feedback tool. Residents and faculty completed a survey after each shift assessing feedback quality, feedback time, and the number of feedback episodes. Feedback quality was assessed using a composite score from seven questions, which were each scored 1 to 5 points (minimum total score, 7 points; maximum, 35 points). Preintervention and postintervention data were analyzed using a mixed-effects model that took into account the correlation of random effects between study participants.

Results: Residents completed 182 surveys and faculty members completed 158 surveys. The use of the tool was associated with improved consistency in the summative score of effective feedback attributes as assessed by residents (P=0.040) but not by faculty (P=0.259). However, most of the individual scores for attributes of good feedback did not reach statistical significance. With the tool, residents perceived that faculty spent more time providing feedback (P=0.040) and that the delivery of feedback was more ongoing throughout the shift (P=0.020). Faculty felt that the tool allowed for more ongoing feedback (P=0.002), with no perceived increase in the time spent delivering feedback (P=0.833).

Conclusion: The use of a dedicated tool may help educators provide more meaningful and frequent feedback without impacting the perceived required time needed to provide feedback.

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
2.80
自引率
10.50%
发文量
59
×
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