Cargando…

Quality of written feedback given to medical students after introduction of real-time audio monitoring of clinical encounters

BACKGROUND: Direct observation is necessary for specific and actionable feedback, however clinicians often struggle to integrate observation into their practice. Remotely audio-monitoring trainees for periods of time may improve the quality of written feedback given to them and may be a minimally di...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sanatani, Michael, Potvin, Kylea, Conter, Henry, Trudgeon, Kimberly, Warner, Andrew
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7382851/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32711511
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02158-6
_version_ 1783563332089806848
author Sanatani, Michael
Potvin, Kylea
Conter, Henry
Trudgeon, Kimberly
Warner, Andrew
author_facet Sanatani, Michael
Potvin, Kylea
Conter, Henry
Trudgeon, Kimberly
Warner, Andrew
author_sort Sanatani, Michael
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Direct observation is necessary for specific and actionable feedback, however clinicians often struggle to integrate observation into their practice. Remotely audio-monitoring trainees for periods of time may improve the quality of written feedback given to them and may be a minimally disruptive task for a consultant to perform in a busy clinic. METHODS: Volunteer faculty used a wireless audio receiver during the second half of students’ oncology rotations to listen to encounters during clinic in real time. They then gave written feedback as per usual practice, as did faculty who did not use the listening-in intervention. Feedback was de-identified and rated, using a rubric, as strong/medium/weak according to consensus of 2/3 rating investigators. RESULTS: Monitoring faculty indicated that audio monitoring made the feedback process easier and increased confidence in 95% of encounters. Most students (19/21 respondents) felt monitoring contributed positively to their learning and included more useful comments. 101 written evaluations were completed by 7 monitoring and 19 non-monitoring faculty. 22/23 (96%) of feedback after monitoring was rated as high quality, compared to 16/37 (43%) (p < 0.001) for monitoring faculty before using the equipment (and 20/78 (26%) without monitoring for all consultants (p < 0.001)). Qualitative analysis of student and faculty comments yielded prevalent themes of highly specific and actionable feedback given with greater frequency and more confidence on the part of the faculty if audio monitoring was used. CONCLUSIONS: Using live audio monitoring improved the quality of written feedback given to trainees, as judged by the trainees themselves and also using an exploratory grading rubric. The method was well received by both faculty and trainees. Although there are limitations compared to in-the-room observation (body language), the benefits of easy integration into clinical practice and a more natural patient encounter without the observer physically present lead the authors to now use this method routinely while teaching oncology students.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7382851
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73828512020-07-28 Quality of written feedback given to medical students after introduction of real-time audio monitoring of clinical encounters Sanatani, Michael Potvin, Kylea Conter, Henry Trudgeon, Kimberly Warner, Andrew BMC Med Educ Research Article BACKGROUND: Direct observation is necessary for specific and actionable feedback, however clinicians often struggle to integrate observation into their practice. Remotely audio-monitoring trainees for periods of time may improve the quality of written feedback given to them and may be a minimally disruptive task for a consultant to perform in a busy clinic. METHODS: Volunteer faculty used a wireless audio receiver during the second half of students’ oncology rotations to listen to encounters during clinic in real time. They then gave written feedback as per usual practice, as did faculty who did not use the listening-in intervention. Feedback was de-identified and rated, using a rubric, as strong/medium/weak according to consensus of 2/3 rating investigators. RESULTS: Monitoring faculty indicated that audio monitoring made the feedback process easier and increased confidence in 95% of encounters. Most students (19/21 respondents) felt monitoring contributed positively to their learning and included more useful comments. 101 written evaluations were completed by 7 monitoring and 19 non-monitoring faculty. 22/23 (96%) of feedback after monitoring was rated as high quality, compared to 16/37 (43%) (p < 0.001) for monitoring faculty before using the equipment (and 20/78 (26%) without monitoring for all consultants (p < 0.001)). Qualitative analysis of student and faculty comments yielded prevalent themes of highly specific and actionable feedback given with greater frequency and more confidence on the part of the faculty if audio monitoring was used. CONCLUSIONS: Using live audio monitoring improved the quality of written feedback given to trainees, as judged by the trainees themselves and also using an exploratory grading rubric. The method was well received by both faculty and trainees. Although there are limitations compared to in-the-room observation (body language), the benefits of easy integration into clinical practice and a more natural patient encounter without the observer physically present lead the authors to now use this method routinely while teaching oncology students. BioMed Central 2020-07-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7382851/ /pubmed/32711511 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02158-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Sanatani, Michael
Potvin, Kylea
Conter, Henry
Trudgeon, Kimberly
Warner, Andrew
Quality of written feedback given to medical students after introduction of real-time audio monitoring of clinical encounters
title Quality of written feedback given to medical students after introduction of real-time audio monitoring of clinical encounters
title_full Quality of written feedback given to medical students after introduction of real-time audio monitoring of clinical encounters
title_fullStr Quality of written feedback given to medical students after introduction of real-time audio monitoring of clinical encounters
title_full_unstemmed Quality of written feedback given to medical students after introduction of real-time audio monitoring of clinical encounters
title_short Quality of written feedback given to medical students after introduction of real-time audio monitoring of clinical encounters
title_sort quality of written feedback given to medical students after introduction of real-time audio monitoring of clinical encounters
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7382851/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32711511
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02158-6
work_keys_str_mv AT sanatanimichael qualityofwrittenfeedbackgiventomedicalstudentsafterintroductionofrealtimeaudiomonitoringofclinicalencounters
AT potvinkylea qualityofwrittenfeedbackgiventomedicalstudentsafterintroductionofrealtimeaudiomonitoringofclinicalencounters
AT conterhenry qualityofwrittenfeedbackgiventomedicalstudentsafterintroductionofrealtimeaudiomonitoringofclinicalencounters
AT trudgeonkimberly qualityofwrittenfeedbackgiventomedicalstudentsafterintroductionofrealtimeaudiomonitoringofclinicalencounters
AT warnerandrew qualityofwrittenfeedbackgiventomedicalstudentsafterintroductionofrealtimeaudiomonitoringofclinicalencounters