Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 111–116 | Cite as

Giving feedback in medical education

Verification of recommended techniques
  • Mariana G. Hewson
  • Margaret L. Little

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We investigated naturally occurring feedback incidents to substantiate literature-based recommended techniques for giving feedback effectively.

SETTING: A faculty development course for improving the teaching of the medical interview, with opportunities for participants to receive feedback.

PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-four course participants (clinician-educators from a wide range of medical disciplines, and several behavioral scientists).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We used qualitative and quantitative approaches. Participants provided narratives of helpful and unhelpful incidents experienced during the course and then rated their own narratives using a semantic-differential survey. We found strong agreement between the two approaches, and congruence between our data and the recommended literature. Giving feedback effectively includes: establishing an appropriate interpersonal climate; using an appropriate location; establishing mutually agreed upon goals; eliciting the learner’s thoughts and feelings; reflecting on observed behaviors; being nonjudgmental; relating feedback to specific behaviors; offering the right amount of feeback; and offering suggestions for improvement.

CONCLUSIONS: Feedback techniques experienced by respondents substantiate the literature-based recommendations, and corrective feedback is regarded as helpful when delivered appropriately. A model for providing feedback is offered.

Key words

giving feedback faculty development narrative inquiry semantic differential 

References

  1. 1.
    Ende J. Feedback in clinical medical education. JAMA. 1983;250(8):777–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Isaacson JH, Posk LK, Litaker DG, Halperin AK. Resident perceptions of the evaluation process. Society of General Internal Medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10(suppl):89.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Westberg J, Jason H. Collaborative Clinical Education: The Foundation of Effective Health Care. New York, NY: Springer Company; 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scholtes PR. The Team Handbook: How to Use Teams to Improve Quality. Madison, Wis: Joiner Associates; 1988.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lipkin M, Kaplan C, Clark W, Novack DH. Teaching medical interviewing: the Lipkin model. In: Lipkin M, Putnam SM, Lazare A, eds. The Medical Interview: Clinical Care, Education and Research. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1995:413–22.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sandelowski M. Telling stories: narrative approaches in qualitative research. IMAGE: J Nurs Sch. 1991;23(3):161–6.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crabtree BF, Miller WL, eds. Doing Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications; 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Osgood CE, Suci GJ, Tannenbaum PH. The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana; Ill: University of Illinois Press; 1957.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Albreck PL, Settle RB. The Survey Research Handbook. (2nd ed.) Chicago, Ill: Richard D Irwin, Inc; 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beckman H, Markakis K, Suchman A, Frankel R. The doctor-patient relationship and malpractice. Arch Intern Med. 1994;154:1365–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Knowles MS. The Modern Practice of Adult Education. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 1980.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hewson MG. Clinical teaching in the ambulatory setting. J Gen Intern Med. 1992;7:76–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mariana G. Hewson
    • 1
  • Margaret L. Little
    • 2
  1. 1.the Cleveland ClinicCleveland
  2. 2.the University of Wisconsin Medical SchoolMadison
  3. 3.Division of Education TT31The Cleveland Clinic FoundationCleveland

Personalised recommendations