ArticleBMC medical education2015
Insightful Practice: a robust measure of medical students' professional response to feedback on their performance.
Article in BMC medical education, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Learning from errors: assessing final year medical students' reflection on safety improvement, five year cohort study.BMC medical education · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare professionals need to show accountability, responsibility and appropriate response to audit feedback. Assessment of Insightful Practice (engagement, insight and appropriate action for improvement) has been shown to offer a robust system, in general practice, to identify concerns in doctors' response to independent feedback. This study researched the system's utility in medical undergraduates.
methodsSETTING AND
participants28 fourth year medical students reflected on their performance feedback. Reflection was supported by a staff coach. Students' portfolios were divided into two groups (n = 14). Group 1 students were assessed by three staff assessors (calibrated using group training) and Group 2 students' portfolios were assessed by three staff assessors (un-calibrated by one-to-one training). Assessments were by blinded web-based exercise and assessors were senior Medical School staff.
designCase series with mixed qualitative and quantitative methods. A feedback dataset was specified as (1) student-specific End-of-Block Clinical Feedback, (2) other available Medical School assessment data and, (3) an assessment of students' identification of prescribing errors. Analysis and statistical tests: Generalisability G-theory and associated Decision D- studies were used to assess the reliability of the system and a subsequent recommendation on students' suitability to progress training. One-to-one interviews explored participants' experiences.
main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was inter-rater reliability of assessment of students' Insightful Practice. Secondary outcome measures were the reaction of participants and their self-reported behavioural change.
resultsThe method offered a feasible and highly reliable global assessment for calibrated assessors, G (inter-rater reliability) > 0.8 (two assessors), but not un-calibrated assessors G < 0.31. Calibrated assessment proved an acceptable basis to enhance feedback and identify concern in professionalism. Students reported increased awareness in teamwork and in the importance of heeding advice. Coaches reported improvement in their feedback skills and commitment to improving the quality of student feedback.
conclusionsInsightful practice offers a reliable and feasible method to evaluate medical undergraduates' professional response to their training feedback. The piloted system offers a method to assist the early identification of students at risk and monitor, where required, the remediation of students to get their level(s) of professional response to feedback back 'on track'.
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.