Using deliberate practice framework to assess the quality of feedback in undergraduate clinical skills training

• Published in: BMC medical education 2019-04, Vol.19 (1), p.105-105, Article 105
• Main Authors: Abraham, Reina M, Singaram, Veena S
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Behavioral Objectives; Clinical competence; Clinical skills; College students; Competence; Deliberate practice; Education; Educational aspects; Educational Environment; Educational Needs; Evaluation; Feed-forward; Feedback; Feedback (Communication); Formative Evaluation; High Achievement; Higher education; Laboratories; Learning; Low Achievement; Medical education; Medical personnel training; Medical students; Performance Based Assessment; Quality; Sampling; Scoring; Skill development; Skills; Student Motivation; Students; Studies; Teaching Methods; Trainees; Training; Tutoring; Tutors
• ISSN: 1472-6920; 1472-6920
• DOI: 10.1186/s12909-019-1547-5

In this research paper we report on the quality of feedback provided in the logbooks of pre-clinical undergraduate students based on a model of 'actionable feedback'. Feedback to clinical learners about their performance is crucial to their learning, which ultimately impacts on their development into competent clinicians. Due to students' concerns regarding the inconsistency and quality of feedback provided by clinicians, a structured feedback improvement strategy to move feedback forward was added to the clinical skills logbook. The instrument was also extended for peer assessment. This study aims to assess the quality of feedback using the deliberate practice framework. A feedback scoring system was used to retrospectively assess the quality of tutor and peer logbook feedback provided to second and third year medical students to identify deliberate practice components i.e. task, performance gap and action plan. The sample consisted of 425 second year and 600 third year feedback responses over a year. All three deliberate practice components were observed in the majority of the written feedback for both classes. The frequency was higher in peer (83%, 89%) than tutor logbook assessments (51%, 67%) in both classes respectively. Average tutor and peer task, gap and action feedback scores ranged from 1.84-2.07 and 1.93-2.21 respectively. The overall quality of feedback provided by the tutor and peer was moderate and less specific (average score