ArticleCureus2024
Through the Looking Glass: Comparing Hospitalists' and Internal Medicine Residents' Perceptions of Feedback.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
- Building an implementation framework for directly observed feedback by attending physicians.PloS one · 2026Article
- Feedback gap and strategies for handling criticism in early surgical career.Surgery open science · 2025Article
- Comment on "Applying a Competency-Based Medical Education Framework to Development of Residents' Feedback Skills".Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFeedback is critical for resident growth and is most effective when the relationship between residents and attendings is collaborative, with shared expectations for the purpose, timing, and manner of communication for feedback. Within internal medicine, there is limited work exploring the resident and hospitalist perspectives on whether key elements are included in feedback sessions.
methodsWe surveyed internal medicine residents and supervising hospitalists at a large urban training program about their perspectives on four components of effective feedback: specificity,timeliness, respectful communication, and actionability.
resultsWe received surveys from 130/184 internal medicine residents and 74/129 hospitalists (71% and 57% response rate, respectively). Residents and hospitalists differed in their perspectives about specificity and timeliness: 54% (70/129) of residents reported they did not receive specific feedback while 90% (65/72) of hospitalists reported they delivered specific feedback (p<0.01), and 33% (43/129) of residents compared with 82% (59/72) of hospitalists perceived feedback as timely (p<0.01). Internal medicine residents and hospitalists reported concordant rates of feedback sessions consisting of a two-way conversation (84%, 109/129; 89%, 64/72, respectively, p=0.82) and that communication was delivered in a respectful manner (95%, 122/129; 97%, 70/72, respectively, p=0.57).
conclusionsWe observed discordance between internal medicine residents and supervising hospitalist perspectives on the inclusion of two critical components of feedback: specificity and timing. The hospitalist cohort reported delivering more components of effective feedback than the resident cohort reported receiving. The etiology of this discordance is likely multifactorial and requires further investigation.
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.