Evaluating the SPIKES Model for Improving Peer-to-Peer Feedback Among Internal Medicine Residents: a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Emmett A Kistler, Victor Chiappa, Yuchiao Chang, Meridale Baggett
Author Information
  1. Emmett A Kistler: Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. ekistler1@mgh.harvard.edu. ORCID
  2. Victor Chiappa: Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
  3. Yuchiao Chang: Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine (Biostatistics), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
  4. Meridale Baggett: Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Feedback improves trainee clinical performance, but the optimal way to provide it remains unclear. Peer feedback offers unique advantages but comes with significant challenges including a lack of rigorously studied methods. The SPIKES framework is a communication tool adapted from the oncology and palliative care literature for teaching trainees how to lead difficult conversations.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if a brief educational intervention focused on the SPIKES framework improves peer feedback between internal medicine trainees on inpatient medicine services as compared to usual practice.
DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial at an academic medical center during academic year 2017-2018.
PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-five PGY1 and 49 PGY2 internal medicine trainees were enrolled. PGY2s were randomized 1:1 to the intervention or control group.
INTERVENTION: The intervention entailed a 30-min, case-based didactic on the SPIKES framework followed by a refresher email on SPIKES sent to PGY2s before each inpatient medicine rotation. PGY1s were blinded as to which PGY2s underwent the training.
MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was PGY1 evaluation of the extent of feedback provided by PGY2s. Secondary outcomes included PGY1 report of feedback quality and PGY2 self-report of feedback quantity and quality. Outcomes were obtained via anonymous online survey and reported using a Likert scale with a range of one to four.
KEY RESULTS: PGY1s completed 207 surveys (51% response rate) and PGY2s completed 61 surveys (42% response rate). PGY1s reported a higher extent of feedback (2.5 vs 2.2; p = 0.02; Cohen's d = 0.31), more specific feedback (2.3 vs 2.0; p < 0.01; d = 0.33), and higher satisfaction with feedback (2.6 vs 2.2; p < 0.01; d = 0.47) from intervention PGY2s. There were no significant differences in PGY2 self-reported outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: With modest implementation requirements and notable limitations, a brief educational intervention focused on SPIKES increased PGY1 perception of the extent, specificity, and satisfaction with feedback from PGY2s.

Keywords

References

  1. AEM Educ Train. 2017 Mar 22;1(2):98-109 [PMID: 30051017]
  2. Nurse Pract. 2012 Feb 12;37(2):1-4 [PMID: 22252021]
  3. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2019 Aug 5;32(4):525-528 [PMID: 31656410]
  4. J Cancer Educ. 2019 Apr;34(2):375-380 [PMID: 29399734]
  5. J Appl Psychol. 2001 Oct;86(5):930-42 [PMID: 11596809]
  6. Arch Intern Med. 2007 Mar 12;167(5):453-60 [PMID: 17353492]
  7. J Gen Intern Med. 1998 Feb;13(2):111-6 [PMID: 9502371]
  8. Oncologist. 2000;5(4):302-11 [PMID: 10964998]
  9. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2012 Mar;17(1):15-26 [PMID: 21468778]
  10. Acad Med. 2017 Sep;92(9):1346-1354 [PMID: 28177958]
  11. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2015 Apr;12(4):557-60 [PMID: 25723379]
  12. J Gen Intern Med. 1999 Sep;14(9):551-4 [PMID: 10491244]
  13. Fam Med. 2002 Nov-Dec;34(10):738-43 [PMID: 12448643]
  14. JAMA. 1983 Aug 12;250(6):777-81 [PMID: 6876333]
  15. Med Teach. 2012;34(11):957-9 [PMID: 22913520]
  16. J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2010 Oct;3(4):385-8 [PMID: 21063562]
  17. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2010 Aug;14(4):514-6 [PMID: 20682509]
  18. J Gen Intern Med. 2002 Oct;17(10):779-87 [PMID: 12390554]
  19. Med Teach. 2017 Jul;39(7):780-782 [PMID: 28024461]
  20. J Grad Med Educ. 2015 Jun;7(2):214-9 [PMID: 26221437]
  21. J Grad Med Educ. 2011 Jun;3(2):138-43 [PMID: 22655133]
  22. J Palliat Med. 2011 Feb;14(2):233-9 [PMID: 21314576]
  23. Med Teach. 2006 Mar;28(2):117-28 [PMID: 16707292]
  24. Acad Med. 1994 Apr;69(4):299-303 [PMID: 8155239]
  25. J Grad Med Educ. 2015 Jun;7(2):208-13 [PMID: 26221436]

MeSH Term

Clinical Competence
Feedback
Humans
Internal Medicine
Internship and Residency
Peer Group

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0feedback2PGY2s0SPIKESinterventionmedicinePGY1=frameworktraineesPGY2PGY1sextentsurveysvspdFeedbackimprovessignificantbriefeducationalfocusedpeerinternalinpatientRandomizedacademicmedicaloutcomesqualityreportedcompletedresponseratehigher<01satisfactionBACKGROUND:traineeclinicalperformanceoptimalwayprovideremainsunclearPeeroffersuniqueadvantagescomeschallengesincludinglackrigorouslystudiedmethodscommunicationtooladaptedoncologypalliativecareliteratureteachingleaddifficultconversationsOBJECTIVE:determineservicescomparedusualpracticeDESIGN:controlledtrialcenteryear2017-2018PARTICIPANTS:Seventy-five49enrolledrandomized1:1controlgroupINTERVENTION:entailed30-mincase-baseddidacticfollowedrefresheremailsentrotationblindedunderwenttrainingMAINMEASURES:primaryoutcomeevaluationprovidedSecondaryincludedreportself-reportquantityOutcomesobtainedviaanonymousonlinesurveyusingLikertscalerangeonefourKEYRESULTS:20751%6142%502Cohen's31specific333647differencesself-reportedCONCLUSIONS:modestimplementationrequirementsnotablelimitationsincreasedperceptionspecificityEvaluatingModelImprovingPeer-to-PeerAmongInternalMedicineResidents:ControlledTrialgraduateeducation

Similar Articles

Cited By