MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6889160076 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.6651070

Exploring the Quality of Narrative Feedback Provided to Residents During Ambulatory Patient Care in Medicine and Surgery

2023· other· en· W6889160076 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeQuality (philosophy)Thematic analysisAmbulatoryQuality managementMEDLINEPatient satisfactionAmbulatory careNarrative inquiry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVESThe transition to competency-based medical education (CBME) has increased the volume of residents’ assessment data; however, the quality of the narrative feedback is yet to be used as feedback-on-feedback for faculty. Our objectives were (1) to explore and compare the quality and content of narrative feedback provided to residents in medicine and surgery during ambulatory patient care and (2) to use the Deliberately Developmental Organization framework to identify strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities to improve quality of feedback within CBME.METHODSWe conducted a mixed convergent methods study with residents from the Departments of Surgery (DoS; <i>n</i> = 7) and Medicine (DoM; <i>n</i> = 9) at Queen's University. We used thematic analysis and the Quality of Assessment for Learning (QuAL) tool to analyze the content and quality of narrative feedback documented in entrustable professional activities (EPAs) assessments for ambulatory care. We also examined the association between the basis of assessment, time to provide feedback, and the quality of narrative feedback.RESULTSForty-one EPA assessments were included in the analysis. Three major themes arose from thematic analysis: Communication, Diagnostics/Management, and Next Steps. Quality of the narrative feedback varied; 46% had sufficient evidence about residents’ performance; 39% provided a suggestion for improvement; and 11% provided a connection between the suggestion and the evidence. There were significant differences between DoM and DoS in quality of feedback scores for evidence (2.1 [1.3] vs. 1.3 [1.1]; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01) and connection (0.4 [0.5] vs. 0.1 [0.3]; <i>p</i> = 0.04) domains of the QuAL tool. Feedback quality was not associated with the basis of assessment or time taken to provide feedback.CONCLUSIONThe quality of the narrative feedback provided to residents during ambulatory patient care was variable with the greatest gap in providing connections between suggestions and evidence about residents’ performance. There is a need for ongoing faculty development to improve the quality of narrative feedback provided to residents.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.291
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.104 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataFrench-language works237,207