A Broader Theoretical Model for Feedback in Ambulatory Care

Area of Science:

• Medical Education
• Healthcare Professional Development
• Learning Sciences

Background:

• Faculty often state they frequently provide feedback, while medical students and residents report receiving it infrequently.
• Discrepancies in perception suggest a misunderstanding or differing definitions of feedback within medical training.
• Improving the educational impact of feedback requires understanding these divergent viewpoints.

Purpose of the Study:

• To explore the differing perceptions of feedback between faculty and trainees in medical education.
• To identify the underlying reasons for the disparity in feedback experiences.
• To propose a framework for understanding feedback that accounts for these differences.

Main Methods:

• Qualitative analysis of perceptions regarding feedback frequency and utility.
• Exploration of the concept of "traditional feedback" versus "situated feedback" based on existing literature and common adages.
• Conceptual framework development to explain the dichotomy in feedback experiences.

Main Results:

• A significant difference exists in how faculty perceive their feedback provision versus how trainees perceive feedback reception.
• The adage "do as I say, not as I do" offers insight into the nature of these differing perceptions.
• A distinction emerges between feedback that is measured against a standard (traditional) and feedback from real-world immersion (situated).

Conclusions:

• The dichotomy between traditional and situated feedback provides a valuable construct for understanding the varied experiences and perceptions of feedback in medical education.
• Recognizing these different types of feedback is crucial for enhancing the educational value and effectiveness of feedback interventions.
• Further research should explore practical strategies for optimizing both traditional and situated feedback in clinical learning environments.