ArticleAEM education and training2021
Novel tool for assessing the quality of feedback in the emergency room (FEED-ER).
Article in AEM education and training, 2021. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Through the Looking Glass: Comparing Hospitalists' and Internal Medicine Residents' Perceptions of Feedback.Cureus · 2024Article
- Novel tool for assessing the quality of feedback in the emergency room (FEED-ER).AEM education and training · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) emphasizes constructive feedback as a critical component of residency training. Despite over a decade of using competency-based milestone evaluations, emergency medicine (EM) residency programs lack a standardized method for assessing the quality of feedback. We developed two novel EM-specific feedback surveys to assess the quality of feedback in the ER (FEED-ER) from both the resident and the faculty perspectives. This study aimed to evaluate the surveys' psychometric properties.
methodsWe developed FEED-ER using a Likert scale with faculty and resident versions based on the ACGME framework and a literature review. The preliminary survey consisted of 25 questions involving the feedback domains of timeliness, respect/communication, specificity, action plan, and feedback culture. We conducted two modified Delphi rounds involving 17 content experts to ensure respondent understanding of the items, item coherence to corresponding feedback domains, thematic saturation of domain content, and time duration. A multicenter study was conducted at five university-based EDs in the United States and one in Thailand in 2019. We evaluated the descriptive statistics of the frequency of responses, validity evidence, and reliability of FEED-ER.
resultsA total of 147 EM faculty and 126 EM residents completed the survey. Internal consistency was adequate (Cronbach's alpha > 0.70) and test-retest reliability showed adequate temporal stability (ICC > 0.80) for all dimensions. Content validity was deemed acceptable (CVC > 0.80) for all items. From the 25 items of FEED-ER, 23 loaded into the originally theorized dimensions (with factor loadings > 0.50). Additionally, the five feedback domains were found to be statistically distinct, with correlations between 0.40 and 0.60. The final survey has 23 items.
conclusionsThis is the first study to develop and provide validity evidence for an EM-specific feedback tool that has strong psychometric properties, is reproducible and reliable, and provides an objective measure for assessing the quality of feedback in the ED.
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.