ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2012
Development of a multisource feedback instrument for clinical supervisors in postgraduate medical training.
Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Cardiology trainees' attitudes towards clinical supervision: a scale development study.International journal of medical education · 2021Article
- Reliability of residents' assessments of their postgraduate medical education learning environment: an observational study.BMC medical education · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical training is a complex endeavour and analysing its quality is not a simple task. The accuracy of information, particularly of data gathered from trainees, will depend greatly on its source, on perceptions relating to confidentiality and on the uses to which the data are put. These factors should guide our choice of feedback instrument. In addition, in times of 'survey fatigue', we have a duty to be efficient. This paper discusses the piloting of the 'feedback on performance for trainers' tool for clinical supervisors of geriatric medicine trainees in the North Western Deanery. This tool is a multi-source feedback instrument that can be used to gather information specifically on the perceived quality of clinical supervision. The tool's design takes into account opinions relating to confidentiality and content validity that have been expressed by trainees, trainers, educationalists and administrators. The tool is relatively easy and quick to use, taking about 10 min of trainee or trainer time. Administrative support is needed but the workload should not be onerous, especially if an on-line process can be developed. Strong evidence to support the validity of this instrument has been collected. The next step is the development and evaluation of the approach as an online process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.