Original Article

Observing and Giving Feedback to Novice PGY-1s

Authors: Katherine Tully, MD, Jennifer Keller, MD, MPH, Benjamin Blatt MD, Larrie Greenberg, MD

Abstract

Objectives: In this new era of educational milestones and entrustable professional activities, residency programs have recognized the need to directly observe resident performance. In fact, there is little information about how often residents are observed, what procedures they perform early in training, and whether they receive feedback. Previous publications have addressed these issues exclusively through retrospective survey analyses. The purpose of this naturalistic point-of-care study was to answer the following questions about obstetrics/gynecology (OB/GYN) residents in their second month of training: what activities do residents report performing, how often are they observed and who observes them, how often do they receive feedback and what is their perception of its usefulness, and does the time of shift affect the frequency of observation and feedback?

Methods: Nine of 10 first-year OB/GYN residents at George Washington University Hospital participated in a month-long study during their second month of training. Based on point-of-care experiences, participants prospectively recorded the time of shift, activities performed, the person who observed them, whether they received feedback, and whether it was perceived as helpful.

Results: First-year OB/GYN residents (postgraduate year 1 [PGY-1]) perform a variety of activities early in training while being observed by senior residents, nurses, and attending physicians 70% of the time. Residents commented that feedback was helpful almost every time they received it, regardless of who provided the feedback. There were no significant differences in the quantity of observations and feedback received between day and night shifts; however, nurses and senior residents were most likely to observe residents during night shifts.

Conclusions: In this naturalistic pilot study, OB/GYN residents reported performing various procedures in their second month of training, with some observations from faculty, senior residents, and nurses. Feedback, as defined in the study, is an important aspect of their early training, although it is not reported with each patient encounter. This pilot study raises critical issues that need further study, such as the following: What should be the gold standard for observing residents around a particular activity? Where should the bar be set for types and numbers of procedures that residents perform early on in training, either with patients or in simulations? What is an acceptable feedback rate around patient encounters? Should we not consider training nurses and senior residents to deliver effective feedback to residents as part of a 360-degree process, because many trainees were observed most frequently by these members of the medical team?

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Carraccio CL, Englander R. From Flexner to competencies: reflections on a decade and the journey ahead. Acad Med 2013;88:1067-1073.
 
2. Cooney CM, Redett RJ 3rd, Dorafshar AH, et al. Integrating the NAS milestones and handheld technology to improve residency training and assessment. J Surg Educ 2014;71:39-42.
 
3. Nasca TJ, Philibert I, Brigham T, et al. The next GME accreditation system--rationale and benefits. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1051-1056.
 
4. Burdick WP, Schoffstall J. Observation of emergency medicine residents at the bedside: how often does it happen? Acad Emerg Med 1995;2:909-913.
 
5. Holmboe ES. Faculty and the observation of trainees’ clinical skills: problems and opportunities. Acad Med 2004;79:16-22.
 
6. Lane JL, Gottlieb RP. Structured clinical observations: a method to teach clinical skills with limited time and financial resources. Pediatrics 2000;105(4 Pt 2):973-977.
 
7. Choo KJ, Arora VM, Barach P, et al. How do supervising physicians decide to entrust residents with unsupervised tasks? A qualitative analysis. J Hosp Med 2014;9:169-175.
 
8. Raymond MR, Mee J, King A, et al. What new residents do during their initial months of training. Acad Med 2011;86(10 Suppl):S59-S62.
 
9. Mazor KM, Holtman MC, Shchukin Y, et al. The relationship between direct observation, knowledge, and feedback: results of a national survey. Acad Med 2011;86(10 Suppl):S63-S68.
 
10. Nagurney JT, Brown DF, Sane S, et al. The accuracy and completeness of data collected by prospective and retrospective methods. Acad Emerg Med 2005;12:884-895.
 
11. Blatt B, Spinazzi NA, Greenberg L. Communication skills training for resident physicians: a physician-educator perspective. In: Hamilton HE, Chou WS, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Health Communication. Abingdon: Routledge, 2014.
 
12. Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res 2007;77:81-112.
 
13. Steinert Y, Mann K, Centeno A, et al. A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to improve teaching effectiveness in medical education: BEME guide no. 8. Med Teach 2006;28:497-526.