We studied the nature of feedback given after a miniCEX. We investigated whether the feedback was interactive; specifically, did the faculty allow the trainee to react to the feedback, enable self-assessment, and help trainees to develop an action plan for improvement. Finally, we investigated the number of types of recommendations given by faculty. One hundred and seven miniCEX feedback sessions were audiotaped. The faculty provided at least 1 recommendation for improvement in 80% of the feedback sessions. The majority of the sessions (61%) involved learner reaction, but in only 34% of the sessions did faculty ask for self-assessment from the intern and only 8% involved an action plan from the faculty member. Faculty are using the miniCEX to provide recommendations and often encourage learner reaction, but are underutilizing other interactive feedback methods of self-assessment and action plans. Programs should consider both specific training in feedback and changes to the miniCEX form to facilitate interactive feedback.
Skeff KM, Stratos GA, Berman J, Bergen MR. Improving clinical teaching. Evaluation of a national dissemination program. Arch Intern Med. 1992;152:1156–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salerno SM, Jackson JL, O’Malley PG. Interactive faculty development seminars improve the quality of written feedback in ambulatory teaching. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18:831–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salerno SM, O’Malley PG, Pangaro LN, Wheeler GA, Moores LK, Jackson JL. Faculty development seminars based on the one-minute preceptor improve feedback in the ambulatory setting. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17:779–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publishing; 1998.Google Scholar