Cargando…

Exploring how differently patients and clinical tutors see the same consultation: building evidence for inclusion of real patient feedback in medical education

BACKGROUND: Undergraduate medical education recognises that patient feedback is potentially valuable for student learning and development as a component of multi-source feedback. However greater exploration of how patient feedback perspectives differ to clinical educators is required for curriculum...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Barr, Jennifer, Ogden, Kathryn, Robertson, Iain, Martin, Jenepher
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8082899/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33926426
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02654-3
_version_ 1783685925930270720
author Barr, Jennifer
Ogden, Kathryn
Robertson, Iain
Martin, Jenepher
author_facet Barr, Jennifer
Ogden, Kathryn
Robertson, Iain
Martin, Jenepher
author_sort Barr, Jennifer
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Undergraduate medical education recognises that patient feedback is potentially valuable for student learning and development as a component of multi-source feedback. However greater exploration of how patient feedback perspectives differ to clinical educators is required for curriculum development and improving student feedback literacy. This study aimed to determine how two sources of feedback, patients and clinical tutors, compare on the same patient-centred, interpersonal criteria. METHODS: A patient feedback instrument designed for the undergraduate medical education setting was used to compare patients’ feedback with clinical tutors’ feedback following a student-patient consultation in the learning context. Assessments from 222 learning consultations involving 40 medical students were collected. Descriptive statistics for tutors and patients for each question were calculated and correlations between patient and tutor were explored using Spearman’s rank-order correlation. Mixed effects ordered logistic regression was used to compare each question with an overall rating for tutor and patients in addition to comparing patient with tutor ratings. RESULTS: Clinical tutor and patient assessments had a weak but significant positive correlation in all areas except questions related to respect and concern. When making judgements compared with overall assessment, patients’ ratings of respect, concern, communication and being understood in the consultation have a greater effect. After eliminating the effect of generally higher ratings by patients compared with tutors using comparative ordered logistic regression, patients rated students relatively less competent in areas of personal interaction. CONCLUSION: This study provides insight about patient feedback, which is required to continue improving the use and acceptability of this multisource feedback to students as a valuable component of their social learning environment. We have revealed the different perspective-specific judgement that patients bring to feedback. This finding contributes to building respect for patient feedback through greater understanding of the elements of consultations for which patients can discriminate performance. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-021-02654-3.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8082899
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80828992021-04-29 Exploring how differently patients and clinical tutors see the same consultation: building evidence for inclusion of real patient feedback in medical education Barr, Jennifer Ogden, Kathryn Robertson, Iain Martin, Jenepher BMC Med Educ Research Article BACKGROUND: Undergraduate medical education recognises that patient feedback is potentially valuable for student learning and development as a component of multi-source feedback. However greater exploration of how patient feedback perspectives differ to clinical educators is required for curriculum development and improving student feedback literacy. This study aimed to determine how two sources of feedback, patients and clinical tutors, compare on the same patient-centred, interpersonal criteria. METHODS: A patient feedback instrument designed for the undergraduate medical education setting was used to compare patients’ feedback with clinical tutors’ feedback following a student-patient consultation in the learning context. Assessments from 222 learning consultations involving 40 medical students were collected. Descriptive statistics for tutors and patients for each question were calculated and correlations between patient and tutor were explored using Spearman’s rank-order correlation. Mixed effects ordered logistic regression was used to compare each question with an overall rating for tutor and patients in addition to comparing patient with tutor ratings. RESULTS: Clinical tutor and patient assessments had a weak but significant positive correlation in all areas except questions related to respect and concern. When making judgements compared with overall assessment, patients’ ratings of respect, concern, communication and being understood in the consultation have a greater effect. After eliminating the effect of generally higher ratings by patients compared with tutors using comparative ordered logistic regression, patients rated students relatively less competent in areas of personal interaction. CONCLUSION: This study provides insight about patient feedback, which is required to continue improving the use and acceptability of this multisource feedback to students as a valuable component of their social learning environment. We have revealed the different perspective-specific judgement that patients bring to feedback. This finding contributes to building respect for patient feedback through greater understanding of the elements of consultations for which patients can discriminate performance. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-021-02654-3. BioMed Central 2021-04-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8082899/ /pubmed/33926426 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02654-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://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
Barr, Jennifer
Ogden, Kathryn
Robertson, Iain
Martin, Jenepher
Exploring how differently patients and clinical tutors see the same consultation: building evidence for inclusion of real patient feedback in medical education
title Exploring how differently patients and clinical tutors see the same consultation: building evidence for inclusion of real patient feedback in medical education
title_full Exploring how differently patients and clinical tutors see the same consultation: building evidence for inclusion of real patient feedback in medical education
title_fullStr Exploring how differently patients and clinical tutors see the same consultation: building evidence for inclusion of real patient feedback in medical education
title_full_unstemmed Exploring how differently patients and clinical tutors see the same consultation: building evidence for inclusion of real patient feedback in medical education
title_short Exploring how differently patients and clinical tutors see the same consultation: building evidence for inclusion of real patient feedback in medical education
title_sort exploring how differently patients and clinical tutors see the same consultation: building evidence for inclusion of real patient feedback in medical education
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8082899/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33926426
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02654-3
work_keys_str_mv AT barrjennifer exploringhowdifferentlypatientsandclinicaltutorsseethesameconsultationbuildingevidenceforinclusionofrealpatientfeedbackinmedicaleducation
AT ogdenkathryn exploringhowdifferentlypatientsandclinicaltutorsseethesameconsultationbuildingevidenceforinclusionofrealpatientfeedbackinmedicaleducation
AT robertsoniain exploringhowdifferentlypatientsandclinicaltutorsseethesameconsultationbuildingevidenceforinclusionofrealpatientfeedbackinmedicaleducation
AT martinjenepher exploringhowdifferentlypatientsandclinicaltutorsseethesameconsultationbuildingevidenceforinclusionofrealpatientfeedbackinmedicaleducation