ABSTRACT
Background Effective feedback is an important tool in medical education for the learning and growth of trainees and for faculty development. It allows learners to remain on course in reaching competence in clinical, research, and interpersonal skills, yet the impact of teaching feedback during hematology-oncology training has not been studied in depth. To tackle the lack of effective constructive feedback within our hematology oncology fellowship program, we initiated a quality improvement (QI) project to identify barriers in delivering and receiving high-quality feedback in the program and to create a curriculum aimed at teaching fellows and faculty how to engage in more effective feedback conversations. In the initial phase of the pilot study, a pre-intervention survey identified the two main barriers for effective feedback in our program as discomfort in giving feedback and lack of protected time. A virtual workshop improved quality of feedback by addressing these barriers and providing tools necessary to give and receive constructive feedback. We aimed to highlight the sustainability of these interventions. Methods Utilizing the results of the pre-intervention survey, we built three 2-hour interactive virtual workshop sessions conducted through the ASCO Quality Training Program. Skills that were emphasized and practiced included appropriate set-up, low-inference observations, dialogic feedback conversations and a structured approach to reinforcing and modifying feedback. A follow up session was conducted three months later allowing for reinforcement of the skills. Post-intervention surveys were given immediately after the initial workshop and after the follow-up session. All surveys were identical employing Likert scale and open-ended questions. Weekly email reminders for protected feedback time were also set up. This project was developed through the ASH Medical Educators Institute. Results Eleven out of 15 attendees completed each of the questionnaires. At baseline, 81.8 % of the participants reported they do not have protected time to complete evaluations. This decreased to 63.6% immediately post-intervention and to 27.3% at the three-month point. Similarly, only 65.5% of the participants reported they were comfortable giving feedback prior to the workshop, increasing to 81.8% immediately after the intervention and was sustained at 81.8% at three months. Half of the participants reported that the feedback was not actionable in the initial questionnaire, decreasing to 10% post-intervention. Majority of the participants agreed that the workshop helped address barriers for effective feedback in our program. Conclusions This study showed the sustainability of positive changes, even during the COVID-19 pandemic, for giving and receiving quality feedback implemented in our fellowship program. Its outcomes are salient given that it utilizes a simple intervention that could be expanded to other training programs as feedback is a systemic problem in medicine. It also underscores the importance of formal workshops in overcoming barriers for effective feedback. Limitations of this QI study include the small sample size and single-institutional design. Our future goals include incorporating a formal yearly curriculum assigning weekly protected time for feedback to ensure these results are sustainable and reproducible with incoming fellows. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
ABSTRACT
Background: Feedback is an integral part of the learning process, allowing learners to remain on course in reaching competence in clinical, research, and interpersonal skills. However, the impact of teaching feedback during hematologyoncology training has not been studied. We aimed to identify barriers in delivering and receiving highquality feedback in our fellowship program and to create a curriculum aimed at teaching fellows and faculty how to engage in more effective feedback conversations. Methods: This pilot study aimed at determining and addressing perceived barriers to high-quality feedback in the hematology-oncology fellowship program. A pre-intervention questionnaire, consisting of Likert scale and openended questions, was administered to identify barriers to giving feedback and to assess satisfaction with the quality of feedback received in our fellowship program. The results of the baseline questionnaire were utilized to build a virtual interactive three-session workshop provided by the ASCO Quality Training Program in which the importance of feedback and methods of providing effective feedback were taught. Topics included feedback set-up, low-inference observation, and a structured approach to reinforcing and modifying feedback. One month after the intervention the participants completed a follow up questionnaire. This project was developed through the ASH Medical Educators Institute. Results: Each questionnaire was completed by 11 participants. The two main barriers to high-quality feedback identified were the discomfort with both giving and receiving feedback, and the lack of protected time. At baseline only 54% of the participants reported they were comfortable giving feedback, increasing to 81% post- intervention. Pre-intervention, 81% of participants reported they did not have protected time for feedback, decreasing to 64% after the intervention and institution of weekly protected time for feedback. Half of the participants reported that the feedback was not actionable in the initial questionnaire, decreasing to 10% postintervention. Overall, fellows reported that their feedback was mostly focused on notes, followed by presentations and interpersonal skills. Faculty reported that most of the feedback they received was about time management and patient care. Conclusions: This pilot study helped address a major barrier to improvement and growth within our training program and confirmed that feedback skills must be taught and practiced. A 6-hour virtual workshop showed tangible results in the satisfaction with and quality of feedback given to both fellows and faculty. Our findings are salient as we completed the intervention during the COVID pandemic. Limitations of the study include its single-institutional design and sample size. A major challenge anticipated is sustainability, which will be addressed by maintaining periodic lectures and assigning protected time for feedback.