| Title |
Guidelines: the do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40037-015-0231-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Janet Lefroy, Chris Watling, Pim W. Teunissen, Paul Brand |
| Abstract |
The guidelines offered in this paper aim to amalgamate the literature on formative feedback into practical Do's, Don'ts and Don't Knows for individual clinical supervisors and for the institutions that support clinical learning. The authors built consensus by an iterative process. Do's and Don'ts were proposed based on authors' individual teaching experience and awareness of the literature, and the amalgamated set of guidelines were then refined by all authors and the evidence was summarized for each guideline. Don't Knows were identified as being important questions to this international group of educators which if answered would change practice. The criteria for inclusion of evidence for these guidelines were not those of a systematic review, so indicators of strength of these recommendations were developed which combine the evidence with the authors' consensus. A set of 32 Do and Don't guidelines with the important Don't Knows was compiled along with a summary of the evidence for each. These are divided into guidelines for the individual clinical supervisor giving feedback to their trainee (recommendations about both the process and the content of feedback) and guidelines for the learning culture (what elements of learning culture support the exchange of meaningful feedback, and what elements constrain it?) CONCLUSION: Feedback is not easy to get right, but it is essential to learning in medicine, and there is a wealth of evidence supporting the Do's and warning against the Don'ts. Further research into the critical Don't Knows of feedback is required. A new definition is offered: Helpful feedback is a supportive conversation that clarifies the trainee's awareness of their developing competencies, enhances their self-efficacy for making progress, challenges them to set objectives for improvement, and facilitates their development of strategies to enable that improvement to occur. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 144 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 33 | 23% |
| Canada | 19 | 13% |
| United States | 10 | 7% |
| Australia | 9 | 6% |
| Netherlands | 5 | 3% |
| Ireland | 4 | 3% |
| Spain | 3 | 2% |
| South Africa | 2 | 1% |
| Denmark | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 9 | 6% |
| Unknown | 48 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 60 | 42% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 43 | 30% |
| Scientists | 37 | 26% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 2% |
| Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 551 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 547 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 65 | 12% |
| Other | 54 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 43 | 8% |
| Researcher | 39 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 37 | 7% |
| Other | 163 | 30% |
| Unknown | 150 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 228 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 36 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 31 | 6% |
| Psychology | 17 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 13 | 2% |
| Other | 55 | 10% |
| Unknown | 171 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 121. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 July 2023.
All research outputs
#349,718
of 25,714,183 outputs
Outputs from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#6
of 575 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,496
of 397,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tijdschrift voor Medisch Onderwijs
#1
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,714,183 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 575 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 397,377 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.