Display options
Cite
Miles A, Ginsburg S, Sibbald M, et al. Feedback from health professionals in postgraduate medical education: Influence of interprofessional relationship, identity and power. Med Educ. 2020;55(4):518-529doi: 10.1111/medu.14426.
Miles, A., Ginsburg, S., Sibbald, M., Tavares, W., Watling, C., & Stroud, L. (2021). Feedback from health professionals in postgraduate medical education: Influence of interprofessional relationship, identity and power. Medical education, 55(4), 518-529. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14426
Miles, Amy, et al. "Feedback from health professionals in postgraduate medical education: Influence of interprofessional relationship, identity and power." Medical education vol. 55,4 (2021): 518-529. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14426
Miles A, Ginsburg S, Sibbald M, Tavares W, Watling C, Stroud L. Feedback from health professionals in postgraduate medical education: Influence of interprofessional relationship, identity and power. Med Educ. 2021 Apr;55(4):518-529. doi: 10.1111/medu.14426. Epub 2020 Dec 19. PMID: 33259070.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Med Educ. 2021 Apr;55(4):518-529. doi: 10.1111/medu.14426. Epub 2020 Dec 19.

Feedback from health professionals in postgraduate medical education: Influence of interprofessional relationship, identity and power.

Medical education

Amy Miles, Shiphra Ginsburg, Matthew Sibbald, Walter Tavares, Chris Watling, Lynfa Stroud

Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
  2. The Wilson Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
  3. Department of Medicine, Centre for Simulation-Based Learning, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
  4. Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
  5. Department of Oncology, Centre for Education Research and Innovation, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada.

PMID: 33259070 DOI: 10.1111/medu.14426

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Capitalising on direct workplace observations of residents by interprofessional team members might be an effective strategy to promote formative feedback in postgraduate medical education. To better understand how interprofessional feedback is conceived, delivered, received and used, we explored both feedback provider and receiver perceptions of workplace feedback.

METHODS: We conducted 17 individual interviews with residents and eight focus groups with health professionals (HPs) (two nurses, two rehabilitation therapists, two pharmacists and two social workers), for a total of 61 participants. Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, data collection and analysis proceeded as an iterative process using constant comparison to identify and explore themes.

RESULTS: Conceptualisations and content of feedback were dependent on whether the resident was perceived as a learner or a peer within the interprofessional relationship. Residents relied on interprofessional role understanding to determine how physician competencies align with HP roles. The perceived alignment was unique to each profession and influenced feedback credibility judgements. Residents prioritised feedback from physicians or within the Medical Expertise domain-a role that HPs felt was over-valued. Despite ideal opportunities for direct observation, operational enactment of feedback was influenced by power differentials between the professions.

DISCUSSION: Our results illuminate HPs' conceptualisation of feedback for residents and the social constructs influencing how their feedback is disseminated. Professional identity and social categorisation added complexity to feedback acceptance and incorporation. To ensure that interprofessional feedback can achieve desired outcomes, education programmes should implement strategies to help mitigate intergroup bias and power imbalance.

© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and The Association for the Study of Medical Education.

References

  1. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. ACGME common program requirements. https://www.acgme.org/Portals/0/PFAssets/ProgramRequirements/CPRResidency2019.pdf. Published July 1, 2019. Accessed September 26, 2019 - PubMed
  2. The Canadian Residency Accreditation Consortium. General standards of accreditation for residency programs. http://www.canera.ca/canrac/general-standards-e. Published July 1, 2018. Accessed September 26, 2019. - PubMed
  3. Lockyer J. Multisource feedback in the assessment of physician competencies. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2003;23(1):4-12. - PubMed
  4. Violato C, Marini A, Toews J, Lockyer J, Fidler H. Feasibility and psychometric properties of using peers, consulting physicians, co-workers, and patients to assess physicians. Acad Med. 1997;72(10 Suppl 1):S82-S84. - PubMed
  5. Watling CJ, Lingard L. Toward meaningful evaluation of medical trainees: the influence of participants’ perceptions of the process. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2012;17(2):183-194. - PubMed
  6. Ramani S, Könings KD, Ginsburg S, van der Vleuten CPM. Feedback redefined: principles and practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(5):744-749. - PubMed
  7. 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(6):284-299. - PubMed
  8. Donnon T, Al Ansari A, Al Alawi S, Violato C. The reliability, validity, and feasibility of multisource feedback physician assessment: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2014;89(3):511-516. - PubMed
  9. Lockyer J. Multisource feedback: can it meet criteria for good assessment? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2013;33(2):89-98. - PubMed
  10. Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities of Canada. Physician practice improvement. http://fmrac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/PPI-System_ENG.pdf. Published February 2016. Accessed August 22, 2020. - PubMed
  11. Medical Council of Canada. Introduction to MCC 360: a multisource feedback initiative - national guidelines. https://mcc.ca/media/MCC-360-MSF-Guidelines.pdf. Published November 2017. Accessed August 22, 2020. - PubMed
  12. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta. Multisource Feedback+. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta. http://www.cpsa.ca/your-practice/msf-plus/. Accessed August 22, 2020. - PubMed
  13. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia. Quick guide to practice assessment. Physician Peer Review Nova Scotia. https://cpsns.ns.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Quick-Guide-to-Practice-Assessment.pdf. Published October 2017. Accessed August 22, 2020. - PubMed
  14. van Schaik SM, Regehr G, Eva KW, Irby DM, O’Sullivan PS. Perceptions of peer-to-peer interprofessional feedback among students in the health professions. Acad Med. 2016;91(6):807-812. - PubMed
  15. Eva KW, Armson H, Holmboe E, et al. Factors influencing responsiveness to feedback: on the interplay between fear, confidence, and reasoning processes. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2012;17(1):15-26. - PubMed
  16. Overeem K, Wollersheim H, Driessen E, et al. Doctors’ perceptions of why 360-degree feedback does (not) work: a qualitative study. Med Educ. 2009;43(9):874-882. - PubMed
  17. Sargeant J, Mann K, Ferrier S. Exploring family physicians’ reactions to multisource feedback: perceptions of credibility and usefulness. Med Educ. 2005;39(5):497-504. - PubMed
  18. Sargeant J, Mann K, Sinclair D, Van der Vleuten C, Metsemakers J. Understanding the influence of emotions and reflection upon multi-source feedback acceptance and use. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2008;13(3):275-288. - PubMed
  19. Sargeant JM, Mann KV, van der Vleuten CP, Metsemakers JF. Reflection: a link between receiving and using assessment feedback. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009;14(3):399-410. - PubMed
  20. Lockyer JM, Violato C, Fidler HM. What multisource feedback factors influence physician self-assessments? A five-year longitudinal study. Acad Med. 2007;82(10 Suppl):S77-S80. - PubMed
  21. Vesel TP, O’Brien BC, Henry DM, van Schaik SM. Useful but different: resident physician perceptions of interprofessional feedback. Teach Learn Med. 2016;28(2):125-134. - PubMed
  22. Burford B, Illing J, Kergon C, Morrow G, Livingston M. User perceptions of multi-source feedback tools for junior doctors. Med Educ. 2010;44(2):165-176. - PubMed
  23. Murphy DJ, Bruce D, Eva KW. Workplace-based assessment for general practitioners: using stakeholder perception to aid blueprinting of an assessment battery. Med Educ. 2008;42(1):96-103. - PubMed
  24. Moonen-van Loon JM, Overeem K, Govaerts MJ, Verhoeven BH, van der Vleuten CP, Driessen EW. The reliability of multisource feedback in competency-based assessment programs: the effects of multiple occasions and assessor groups. Acad Med. 2015;90(8):1093-1099. - PubMed
  25. Stroud L, Sibbald M, Richardson D, McDonald-Blumer H, Cavalcanti RB. Feedback credibility in a formative postgraduate objective structured clinical examination: effects of examiner type. J Grad Med Educ. 2018;10(2):185-191. - PubMed
  26. Burford B. Group processes in medical education: learning from social identity theory. Med Educ. 2012;46(2):143-152. - PubMed
  27. Bing-You RG, Paterson J, Levine MA. Feedback falling on deaf ears: residents’ receptivity to feedback tempered by sender credibility. Med Teach. 1997;19(1):40-44. - PubMed
  28. Nikels SM, Guiton G, Loeb D, Brandenburg S. Evaluating nonphysician staff members’ self-perceived ability to provide multisource evaluations of residents. J Grad Med Educ. 2013;5(1):64-69. - PubMed
  29. Yama BA, Hodgins M, Boydell K, Schwartz SB. A qualitative exploration: questioning multisource feedback in residency education. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):170. - PubMed
  30. Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Anyalysis. London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2006. - PubMed
  31. Charmaz K. Invitation to grounded theory. In: Silverman D, ed. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Introducing Qualitative Methods, London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2006:1-12. - PubMed
  32. Krueger R. Focus groups. In: Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd; 1994:2-38. - PubMed
  33. Charmaz K. Gathering rich data. In: Silverman D, ed. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide to Qualitative Analysis. Introducing Qualitative Methods, London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2006:13-41. - PubMed
  34. Charmaz K. Coding in grounded theory practice. In: Silverman D, ed. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Introducing Qualitative Methods, London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2006:42-71. - PubMed
  35. Hennink MM, Kaiser BN, Marconi VC. Code saturation versus meaning saturation: how many interviews are enough? Qual Health Res. 2016;27(4):591-608. - PubMed
  36. Shute VJ. Focus on formative feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2008;78(1):153-189. - PubMed
  37. Boud D, Molloy E. Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design. Assess Eval High Educ. 2013;38(6):698-712. - PubMed
  38. Archer JC. State of the science in health professional education: effective feedback. Med Educ. 2010;44(1):101-108. - PubMed
  39. Van De Ridder JMM, Stokking KM, McGaghie WC, Ten Cate OTJ. What is feedback in clinical education? Med Educ. 2008;42(2):189-197. - PubMed
  40. Tajfel H, Turner J. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Austin WG, Worchel S, eds. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Montery, CA: Brooks-Cole; 1979:33-47. - PubMed
  41. Turner J. Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. In: Lawler EJ, ed. Advances in Group Processes: Theory and Research, Vol. 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press; 1985:77-122. - PubMed
  42. McNeil KA, Mitchell RJ, Parker V. Interprofessional practice and professional identity threat. Health Sociol Rev. 2013;22(3):291-307. - PubMed
  43. Best S, Williams S. Professional identity in interprofessional teams: findings from a scoping review. J Interprof Care. 2019;33(2):170-181. - PubMed
  44. Sims S, Hewitt G, Harris R. Evidence of collaboration, pooling of resources, learning and role blurring in interprofessional healthcare teams: a realist synthesis. J Interprof Care. 2015;29(1):20-25. - PubMed
  45. Suter E, Arndt J, Arthur N, Parboosingh J, Taylor E, Deutschlander S. Role understanding and effective communication as core competencies for collaborative practice. J Interprof Care. 2009;23(1):41-51. - PubMed
  46. van Schaik SM, O’Brien BC, Almeida SA, Adler SR. Perceptions of interprofessional teamwork in low-acuity settings: a qualitative analysis. Med Educ. 2014;48(6):583-592. - PubMed
  47. Sargeant J, Loney E, Murphy G. Effective interprofessional teams: “Contact is not enough” to build a team. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2008;28(4):228-234. - PubMed
  48. The Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative. A national interprofessional competency framework. http://www.cihc-cpis.com/publications1.html. Published February 2010. Accessed September 7, 2019. - PubMed
  49. Freidson E. Profession of Medicine: A Study of the Sociology of Applied Knowledge, 2nd edn. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press; 1988. - PubMed
  50. Witz A. Professions and Patriarchy. New York, NY: Routledge; 1992. - PubMed
  51. Baker L, Egan-Lee E, Martimianakis MA, Reeves S. Relationships of power: implications for interprofessional education. J Interprof Care. 2011;25(2):98-104. - PubMed
  52. Paradis E, Whitehead CR. Louder than words: power and conflict in interprofessional education articles, 1954-2013. Med Educ. 2015;49(4):399-407. - PubMed
  53. Paradis E, Whitehead CR. Beyond the lamppost: a proposal for a fourth wave of education for collaboration. Acad Med. 2018;93(10):1457-1463. - PubMed
  54. Sargeant J, Mcnaughton E, Mercer S, Murphy D, Sullivan P, Bruce DA. Providing feedback: exploring a model (emotion, content, outcomes) for facilitating multisource feedback. Med Teach. 2011;33(9):744-749. - PubMed
  55. Francois J, Sisler J, Mowat S. Peer-assisted debriefing of multisource feedback: an exploratory qualitative study. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):36. - PubMed
  56. Sargeant J, Lockyer J, Mann K, et al. Facilitated reflective performance feedback: developing an evidence- and theory-based model that builds relationship, explores reactions and content, and coaches for performance change (R2C2). Acad Med. 2015;90(12):1698-1706. - PubMed
  57. Sargeant J, Lockyer JM, Mann K, et al. The R2C2 model in residency education: how does It foster coaching and promote feedback use? Acad Med. 2018;93(7):1055-1063. - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types

Grant support