Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (doi: 10.1007/s40037-017-0361-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Receiving feedback while in the clinical workplace is probably the most frequently voiced desire of students. In clinical learning environments, providing and seeking performance-relevant information is often difficult for both supervisors and students. The use of entrustable professional activities (EPAs) can help to improve student assessment within competency-based education. This study aimed to illustrate what students’ perceptions are of meaningful feedback viewed as conducive in preparing for performing EPA unsupervised.
In a qualitative multicentre study we explored students’ perceptions on meaningful feedback related to EPAs in the clinical workplace. Focus groups were conducted in three different healthcare institutes. Based on concepts from the literature, the transcripts were coded, iteratively reduced and displayed.
Participants’ preferences regarding meaningful feedback on EPAs were quite similar, irrespective of their institution or type of clerkship. Participants explicitly mentioned that feedback on EPAs could come from a variety of sources. Feedback must come from a credible, trustworthy supervisor who knows the student well, be delivered in a safe environment and stress both strengths and points for improvement. The feedback should be provided immediately after the observed activity and include instructions for follow-up. Students would appreciate feedback that refers to their ability to act unsupervised.
There is abundant literature on how feedback should be provided, and what factors influence how feedback is sought by students. This study showed that students who are training to perform an EPA unsupervised have clear ideas about how, when and from whom feedback should be delivered.
Box 1: Feedback processes related to a core EPA of Farm Animal Health Veterinary Education: the Caesarean Section in the cow40037_2017_361_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Cantillon P, Sargeant J. Giving feedback in clinical settings. BMJ. 2008;337:a1961. CrossRef
Bok HG, Teunissen PW, Favier RP, et al. Programmatic assessment of competency-based workplace learning: when theory meets practice. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13:1. CrossRef
Van der Schaaf M, Baartman L, Prins F, Oosterbaan A, Schaap H. Feedback dialogues that stimulate students’ reflective thinking. Scand J Educ Res. 2013;57:227–45. CrossRef
Mulder H, Cate OT, Daalder R, Berkvens J. Building a competency-based workplace curriculum around entrustable professional activities: the case of physician assistant training. Med Teach. 2010;32:e453–e9. CrossRef
Watling C, Driessen E, Vleuten CP, Vanstone M, Lingard L. Beyond individualism: professional culture and its influence on feedback. Med Educ. 2013;47:585–94. CrossRef
Ten Cate O. Entrustability of professional activities and competency-bases training. Med Educ. 2005;39:1176–7. CrossRef
Boyce P, Spratt C, Davies M, McEvoy P. Using entrustable professional activities to guide curriculum development in psychiatry training. BMC Med Educ. 2011;11:96. CrossRef
Caverzagie KJ, Cooney TG, Hemmer PA, Berkowitz L. The development of entrustable professional activities for internal medicine residency training: a report from the Education Redesign Committee of the Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine. Acad Med. 2015;90:479–84. CrossRef
Chen HC, McNamara M, Teherani A, Cate OT, O’Sullivan P. Developing entrustable professional activities for entry into clerkship. Acad Med. 2016;91:247–55. CrossRef
Wisman-Zwarter N, van der Schaaf M, Ten Cate O, Jonker G, van Klei WA, Hoff RG. Transforming the learning outcomes of anaesthesiology training into entrustable professional activities: a Delphi study. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2016;33:559–67. CrossRef
Ten Cate O, Scheele F. Competency-based postgraduate training: Can we bridge the gap between theory and clinical practice? Acad Med. 2007;82:542–7. CrossRef
Holmboe ES, Sherbino J, Long DM, Swing SR, Frank JR. The role of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med Teach. 2010;32:676–82. CrossRef
Swing SR. Perspectives on competency-based medical education from the learning sciences. Med Teach. 2010;32:663–8. CrossRef
Billett S. Workplace participatory practices: conceptualising workplaces as learning environments. J Workplace Learn. 2004;16:312–24. CrossRef
Bok HG, Teunissen PW, Spruijt A, et al. Clarifying students’ feedback-seeking behaviour in clinical clerkships. Med Educ. 2013;47:282–91. CrossRef
Bok HG, Jaarsma DA, Spruijt A, et al. Feedback-giving behaviour in performance evaluations during clinical clerkships. Med Teach. 2016;38:88–95. CrossRef
Kluger AN, DeNisi A. The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol Bull. 1996;119:254. CrossRef
Carless D. Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Stud High Educ. 2006;31:219–33. CrossRef
Bok HG, Teunissen PW. Patients and learners: time for a re-evaluation of our goals in bringing them together. Med Educ. 2013;47:232–41. CrossRef
Van der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LWT. Assessing professional competence: from methods to programmes. Med Educ. 2005;39:309–17. CrossRef
Dijksterhuis MG, Voorhuis M, Teunissen PW, et al. Assessment of competence and progressive independence in postgraduate clinical training. Med Educ. 2009;43:1156–65. CrossRef
Crommelinck M, Anseel F. Understanding and encouraging feedback-seeking behaviour: a literature review. Med Educ. 2013;47:232–41. CrossRef
Teunissen PW, Stapel DA, van der Vleuten C, Scherpbier A, Boor K, Scheele F. Who wants feedback? An investigation of the variables influencing residents’ feedback-seeking behavior in relation to night shifts. Acad Med. 2009;84:910–7. CrossRef
Ashford SJ, Blatt R, Walle DV. Reflections on the looking glass: a review of research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. J Manage. 2003;29:773–99.
El-Haddad C, Damodaran A, McNeil HP, Hu W. The ABCs of EPAs – an overview of ‘Entrustable Professional Activities’ in medical education. Intern Med J. 2015;10:1111.
O’Neil MJ, Jackson L. Nominal group technique: a process for initiating curriculum development in higher education. Stud High Educ. 1983;8:129–38. CrossRef
Rabiee F. Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proc Nutr Soc. 2004;63:655–60. CrossRef
Teddlie C, Yu F. Mixed methods sampling: a typology with examples. J Mix Methods Res. 2007;1:77–100.
Ende J. Feedback in clinical medical education. JAMA. 1983;250:777–81. CrossRef
Miller A, Archer J. Impact of workplace based assessment on doctors’ education and performance: a systematic review. BMJ. 2010;341:c5064. CrossRef
Saedon H, Salleh S, Balakrishnan A, Imray CH, Saedon M. The role of feedback in improving the effectiveness of workplace based assessments: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2012;12:1. CrossRef
Van de Ridder JMM. Feedback in clinical education (Doctoral Thesis), Chapter 4: Measuring trainee Perception of the Value of Feedback in Clinical Settings. 2015.
Van der Zwet J, Hanssen V, Zwietering P, et al. Workplace learning in general practice: supervision, patient mix and independence emerge from the black box once again. Med Teach. 2010;32:e294–e9. CrossRef
Kilminster S, Cottrell D, Grant J, Jolly B. AMEE guide no. 27: effective educational and clinical supervision. Med Teach. 2007;29:2–19. CrossRef
Sender Liberman A, Liberman M, Steinert Y, McLeod P, Meterissian S. Surgery residents and attending surgeons have different perceptions of feedback. Med Teach. 2005;27:470–2. CrossRef
Van der Zwet J, Dornan T, Teunissen P, de Jonge L, Scherpbier A. Making sense of how physician preceptors interact with medical students: discourses of dialogue, good medical practice, and relationship trajectories. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2014;19:85–98. CrossRef
Harrison CJ, Könings KD, Dannefer EF, Schuwirth LW, Wass V, van der Vleuten CPM. Factors influencing students’ receptivity to formative feedback emerging from different assessment cultures. Perspect Med Educ. 2016;5:276–84. CrossRef
Kogan JR, Holmboe ES, Hauer KE. Tools for direct observation and assessment of clinical skills of medical trainees: a systematic review. JAMA. 2009;302:1316–26. CrossRef
Veloski J, Boex JR, Grasberger MJ, Evans A, Wolfson DB. Systematic review of the literature on assessment, feedback and physicians’ clinical performance: BEME guide no. 7. Med Teach. 2006;28:117–28. CrossRef
Hirsh DA, Holmboe ES, ten Cate O. Time to trust: longitudinal integrated clerkships and entrustable professional activities. Acad Med. 2014;89:201–4. CrossRef
Hauer KE, O’Brien BC, Hansen LA, et al. More is better: students describe successful and unsuccessful experiences with teachers differently in brief and longitudinal relationships. Acad Med. 2012;87:1389–96. CrossRef
Frank JR, Snell LS, Cate OT, et al. Competency-based medical education: theory to practice. Med Teach. 2010;32:638–45. CrossRef
Lefroy J, Watling C, Teunissen PW, Brand P. Guidelines: the do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education. Perspect Med Educ. 2015;4:284–99. CrossRef
- Am I ready for it? Students’ perceptions of meaningful feedback on entrustable professional activities
Chantal C. M. A. Duijn
Lisanne S. Welink
Olle T. J. ten Cate
Wim D. J. Kremer
Harold G. J. Bok
- Bohn Stafleu van Loghum