Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A view from the sender side of feedback: anticipated receptivity to clinical feedback when changing prior physicians’ clinical decisions—a mixed methods study

  • Published:
Advances in Health Sciences Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When physicians transition patients, the physician taking over may change the diagnosis. Such a change could serve as an important source of clinical feedback to the prior physician. However, this feedback may not transpire if the current physician doubts the prior physician’s receptivity to the information. This study explored facilitators of and barriers to feedback communication in the context of patient care transitions using an exploratory sequential, qualitative to quantitative, mixed methods design. Twenty-two internal medicine residents and hospitalist physicians from two teaching hospitals were interviewed and data were analyzed thematically. A prominent theme was participants’ reluctance to communicate diagnostic changes. Participants perceived case complexity and physical proximity to facilitate, and hierarchy, unfamiliarity with the prior physician, and lack of relationship to inhibit communication. In the subsequent quantitative portion of the study, forty-one hospitalists completed surveys resulting in 923 total survey responses. Multivariable analyses and a mixed-effects model were applied to survey data with anticipated receptivity as the outcome variable. In the mixed-effects model, four factors had significant positive associations with receivers’ perceived receptivity: (1) feedback senders’ time spent on teaching services (β = 0.52, p = 0.02), (2) receivers’ trustworthiness and clinical credibility (β = 0.49, p < 0.001), (3) preference of both for shared work rooms (β = 0.15, p = 0.006), and (4) receivers being peers (β = 0.24, p < 0.001) or junior colleagues (β = 0.39, p < 0.001). This study suggests that anticipated receptivity to feedback about changed clinical decisions affects clinical communication loops. Without trusting relationships and opportunities for low risk, casual conversations, hospitalists may avoid such conversations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bing-You, R., Varaklis, K., Hayes, V., Trowbridge, R., Kemp, H., & McKelvy, D. (2018). The feedback tango: An integrative review and analysis of the content of the teacher–learner feedback exchange. Academic Medicine,93, 657–663. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bing-You, R. G., Paterson, J., & Levine, M. A. (1997). Feedback falling on deaf ears: Residents’ receptivity to feedback tempered by sender credibility. Medical Teacher,19(1), 40–44. https://doi.org/10.3109/01421599709019346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogo, M., Regehr, C., Power, R., & Regehr, G. (2007). When values collide: Field instructors’ experiences of providing feedback and evaluating competence. The Clinical Supervisor,26, 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1300/J001v26n01_08.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bok, H. G., Jaarsma, D. A., Spruijt, A., Van Beukelen, P., Van Der Vleuten, C. P., & Teunissen, P. W. (2016). Feedback-giving behaviour in performance evaluations during clinical clerkships. Medical Teacher,38(1), 88–95. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2015.1017448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, J. L., Ilgen, J. S., Irby, D. M., Ten Cate, O., & O’Brien, B. C. (2017a). “You have to know the end of the story”: Motivations to follow up after transitions of clinical responsibility. Academic Medicine,92(11S), S48–S54. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000001919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, J. L., Ilgen, J. S., Irby, D. M., Ten Cate, O., Regehr, G., & O’Brien, B. C. (2019). Reflections from the rear view mirror: Internal medicine physicians’ reactions to clinical feedback after transitions of responsibility. Academic Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, J. L., O’Brien, B. C., Ilgen, J. S., Irby, D. M., & Ten Cate, O. (2018). Chart stalking, list making, and physicians’ efforts to track patients’ outcomes after transitioning responsibility. Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, L., Marshall, M., & Murdoch-Eaton, D. (2017b). Medical student perceptions of feedback and feedback behaviors within the context of the “educational Alliance”. Academic Medicine,92(9), 1303–1312. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burack, J. H., Irby, D. M., Carline, J. D., Root, R. K., & Larson, E. B. (1999). Teaching compassion and respect. Attending physicians’ responses to problematic behaviors. Journal of General Internal Medicine,14(1), 49–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chou, C. L., Masters, D. E., Chang, A., Kruidering, M., & Hauer, K. E. (2013). Effects of longitudinal small-group learning on delivery and receipt of communication skills feedback. Medical Education,47(11), 1073–1079. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • de la Cruz, M. S., Kopec, M. T., & Wimsatt, L. A. (2015). Resident perceptions of giving and receiving peer-to-peer feedback. Journal of Graduate Medical Education,7(2), 208–213. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-14-00388.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ende, J., Pomerantz, A., & Erickson, F. (1995). Preceptors’ strategies for correcting residents in an ambulatory care medicine setting: A qualitative analysis. Academic Medicine,70(3), 224–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eva, K. W., Armson, H., Holmboe, E., Lockyer, J., Loney, E., Mann, K., et al. (2012). Factors influencing responsiveness to feedback: On the interplay between fear, confidence, and reasoning processes. Advances in Health Sciences Education Theory Practice,17(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-011-9290-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eva, K. W., & Regehr, G. (2013). Effective feedback for maintenance of competence: From data delivery to trusting dialogues. CMAJ,185(6), 463–464. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.121772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, L., Bourgeois-Law, G., Ajjawi, R., & Regehr, G. (2017). An autoethnographic exploration of the use of goal oriented feedback to enhance brief clinical teaching encounters. Advances in Health Sciences Education Theory Practice,22(1), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-016-9686-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin,51(4), 327–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg, S., Regehr, G., & Lingard, L. (2003). The disavowed curriculum: understanding student’s reasoning in professionally challenging situations. Journal of General Internal Medicine,18(12), 1015–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg, S., van der Vleuten, C., Eva, K. W., & Lingard, L. (2016). Hedging to save face: A linguistic analysis of written comments on in-training evaluation reports. Advances in Health Sciences Education Theory Practice,21(1), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-015-9622-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, C. J., Konings, K. D., Dannefer, E. F., Schuwirth, L. W., Wass, V., & van der Vleuten, C. P. (2016). Factors influencing students’ receptivity to formative feedback emerging from different assessment cultures. Perspectives on Medical Education,5(5), 276–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-016-0297-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen, J. S., Eva, K. W., de Bruin, A., Cook, D. A., & Regehr, G. (2018). Comfort with uncertainty: Reframing our conceptions of how clinicians navigate complex clinical situations. Advances in Health Sciences Education (online early). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-018-9859-5.

  • Johnson, D., & Grayson, K. (2005). Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships. Journal of Business Research,58, 500–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(03)00140-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogan, J. R., Conforti, L. N., Bernabeo, E. C., Durning, S. J., Hauer, K. E., & Holmboe, E. S. (2012). Faculty staff perceptions of feedback to residents after direct observation of clinical skills. Medical Education,46(2), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04137.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaDonna, K. A., Hatala, R., Lingard, L., Voyer, S., & Watling, C. (2017). Staging a performance: Learners’ perceptions about direct observation during residency. Medical Education,51(5), 498–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces,63(4), 967–985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann, K., van der Vleuten, C., Eva, K., Armson, H., Chesluk, B., Dornan, T., et al. (2011). Tensions in informed self-assessment: How the desire for feedback and reticence to collect and use it can conflict. Academic Medicine,86(9), 1120–1127. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e318226abdd.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods source book. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mylopoulos, M., & Farhat, W. (2015). “I can do better”: Exploring purposeful improvement in daily clinical work. Advances in Health Sciences Education Theory Practice,20(2), 371–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-014-9533-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Oganizational Behavior,27, 941–966. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Wasserman, W. (1996). Applied linear statistical models (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Johnson, R. B., & Mt Collins, K. (2009). Call for mixed analysis: A philosophical framework for combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Internaltional Journal of Multiple Research Approaches,3(2), 114–139. https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.3.2.114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramani, S., Konings, K. D., Mann, K. V., Pisarski, E. E., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2018). About politeness, face, and feedback: Exploring resident and faculty perceptions of how institutional feedback culture influences feedback practices. Academic Medicine,93(9), 1348–1358. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regehr, G., & Mylopoulos, M. (2008). Maintaining competence in the field: Learning about practice, through practice, in practice. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions,28(Suppl 1), S19–S23. https://doi.org/10.1002/chp.203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saint-Charles, J., & Mongeau, P. (2009). Different relationships for coping with ambiguity and uncertainty in organizations. Social Networks,31, 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2008.09.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, J., Lockyer, J., Mann, K., Holmboe, E., Silver, I., Armson, H., et al. (2015). Facilitated reflective performance feedback: Developing an evidence- and theory-based model that builds relationship, explores reactions and content, and coaches for performance change (R2C2). Academic Medicine,90(12), 1698–1706. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,96(4), 863–871. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Telio, S., Regehr, G., & Ajjawi, R. (2016). Feedback and the educational alliance: Examining credibility judgements and their consequences. Medical Education,50(9), 933–942. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ten Cate, O. T. (2013). Why receiving feedback collides with self determination. Advances in Health Sciences Education Theory Practice,18(4), 845–849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-012-9401-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van de Ridder, J. M., McGaghie, W. C., Stokking, K. M., & ten Cate, O. T. (2015). Variables that affect the process and outcome of feedback, relevant for medical training: A meta-review. Medical Education,49(7), 658–673. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Leeuw, R. M., Slootweg, I. A., Heineman, M. J., & Lombarts, K. M. (2013). Explaining how faculty members act upon residents’ feedback to improve their teaching performance. Medical Education,47(11), 1089–1098. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varpio, L., Ajjawi, R., Monrouxe, L. V., O’Brien, B. C., & Rees, C. E. (2017). Shedding the cobra effect: Problematising thematic emergence, triangulation, saturation and member checking. Medical Education,51, 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voyer, S., Cuncic, G., Butler, D. L., MacNeil, K., Watling, C., & Hatala, R. (2016). Investigating conditions for meaningful feedback in the context of an evidence-based feedback programme. Medical Education,50, 943–954. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis, G. B., & Artino, A. R., Jr. (2013). What do our respondents think we’re asking? Using cognitive interviewing to improve medical education surveys. Journal of Graduate Medical Education,5(3), 353–356. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-13-00154.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Education and Clinical Sciences, Spokane Academic Center, Elson S Floyd College of Medicine, Washington State University, 412 E. Spokane Falls Blvd, Spokane, WA, 99202, USA

    Judith L. Bowen

  2. Portland Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Portland, OR, USA

    Judith L. Bowen & Joseph Chiovaro

  3. Department of Medicine and Center for Faculty Educators, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Christy Kim Boscardin, Olle ten Cate, David M. Irby & Bridget C. O’Brien

  4. Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA

    Joseph Chiovaro

  5. Center for Research and Development of Education, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Olle ten Cate

  6. Department of Surgery and Centre for Health Education Scholarship, University of British Columbia, British Columbia, Canada

    Glenn Regehr

Authors
  1. Judith L. Bowen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christy Kim Boscardin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joseph Chiovaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Olle ten Cate
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Glenn Regehr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David M. Irby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Bridget C. O’Brien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Judith L. Bowen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have potential conflict of interest to disclose.

Human and animal rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bowen, J.L., Boscardin, C.K., Chiovaro, J. et al. A view from the sender side of feedback: anticipated receptivity to clinical feedback when changing prior physicians’ clinical decisions—a mixed methods study. Adv in Health Sci Educ 25, 263–282 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-019-09916-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-019-09916-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation