Resident Perceptions of Giving and Receiving Peer-to-Peer Feedback.

Maria Syl D de la Cruz, Michael T Kopec, Leslie A Wimsatt
Author Information

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Peer feedback is increasingly being used by residency programs to provide an added dimension to the assessment process. Studies show that peer feedback is useful, uniquely informative, and reliable compared to other types of assessments. Potential barriers to implementation include insufficient training/preparation, negative consequences for working relationships, and a perceived lack of benefit.
OBJECTIVE: We explored the perceptions of residents involved in peer-to-peer feedback, focusing on factors that influence accuracy, usefulness, and application of the information.
METHODS: Family medicine residents at the University of Michigan who were piloting an online peer assessment tool completed a brief survey to offer researchers insight into the peer feedback process. Focus groups were conducted to explore residents' perceptions that are most likely to affect giving and receiving peer feedback.
RESULTS: Survey responses were provided by 28 of 30 residents (93%). Responses showed that peer feedback provided useful (89%, 25 of 28) and unique (89%, 24 of 27) information, yet only 59% (16 of 27) reported that it benefited their training. Focus group participants included 21 of 29 eligible residents (72%). Approaches to improve residents' ability to give and accept feedback included preparatory training, clearly defined goals, standardization, fewer and more qualitatively oriented encounters, 1-on-1 delivery, immediacy of timing, and cultivation of a feedback culture.
CONCLUSIONS: Residents perceived feedback as important and offered actionable suggestions to enhance accuracy, usefulness, and application of the information shared. The findings can be used to inform residency programs that are interested in creating a meaningful peer feedback process.

References

  1. Acad Emerg Med. 2006 Apr;13(4):467-70 [PMID: 16531593]
  2. Acad Med. 1993 May;68(5):388 [PMID: 8484858]
  3. J Grad Med Educ. 2009 Dec;1(2):221-4 [PMID: 21975982]
  4. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:117 [PMID: 24928420]
  5. Med Educ. 2003 Jun;37(6):539-43 [PMID: 12787377]
  6. Acad Med. 1997 Oct;72(10):876-80 [PMID: 9347709]
  7. BMJ. 2004 May 22;328(7450):1240 [PMID: 15155502]
  8. Acad Med. 2010 Jan;85(1):140-7 [PMID: 20042840]
  9. N Engl J Med. 2007 Jan 25;356(4):387-96 [PMID: 17251535]
  10. Fam Med. 2002 Nov-Dec;34(10):738-43 [PMID: 12448643]
  11. J Gen Intern Med. 1999 Sep;14(9):551-4 [PMID: 10491244]
  12. Acad Emerg Med. 2009 Dec;16 Suppl 2:S76-81 [PMID: 20053217]
  13. Acad Med. 1994 Apr;69(4):299-303 [PMID: 8155239]
  14. J Grad Med Educ. 2011 Jun;3(2):138-43 [PMID: 22655133]
  15. Med Teach. 2013;35(1):58-62 [PMID: 23102164]
  16. PM R. 2010 Feb;2(2):117-24 [PMID: 20193938]
  17. Acad Emerg Med. 2011 May;18(5):504-12 [PMID: 21569169]
  18. Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Apr;99(4):647-51 [PMID: 12039128]
  19. J Surg Educ. 2013 Sep-Oct;70(5):628-35 [PMID: 24016374]
  20. J Surg Educ. 2008 Jan-Feb;65(1):8-16 [PMID: 18308277]

MeSH Term

Attitude of Health Personnel
Family Practice
Feedback
Humans
Internet
Internship and Residency
Peer Group
Perception

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0feedbackpeerresidentsprocessinformationusedresidencyprogramsassessmentusefulperceivedperceptionsaccuracyusefulnessapplicationFocusresidents'provided2889%27trainingincludedBACKGROUND:PeerincreasinglyprovideaddeddimensionStudiesshowuniquelyinformativereliablecomparedtypesassessmentsPotentialbarriersimplementationincludeinsufficienttraining/preparationnegativeconsequencesworkingrelationshipslackbenefitOBJECTIVE:exploredinvolvedpeer-to-peerfocusingfactorsinfluenceMETHODS:FamilymedicineUniversityMichiganpilotingonlinetoolcompletedbriefsurveyofferresearchersinsightgroupsconductedexplorelikelyaffectgivingreceivingRESULTS:Surveyresponses3093%Responsesshowed25unique24yet59%16reportedbenefitedgroupparticipants2129eligible72%Approachesimproveabilitygiveacceptpreparatoryclearlydefinedgoalsstandardizationfewerqualitativelyorientedencounters1-on-1deliveryimmediacytimingcultivationcultureCONCLUSIONS:ResidentsimportantofferedactionablesuggestionsenhancesharedfindingscaninforminterestedcreatingmeaningfulResidentPerceptionsGivingReceivingPeer-to-PeerFeedback

Similar Articles

Cited By (15)