ArticleBMC medical education2024
Assessment of performance feedback as a teaching-learning tool in the operating room at the National Referral Hospital, Bhutan: a prospective pre-post interventional study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. 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.
- Clinical Feedback as a Relational and Organisational Process: A Qualitative Study of Students' Experiences in Operating Room Environment.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Private Hospital Anesthesia Rotation in A Rural Clinical School: A Pilot Study of Medical Students' Perceptions of One-To-One Supervision.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
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
backgroundEffective, efficient, and enduring feedback on performance improves and accelerates learning in medical education. Basic teaching methods like providing constructive feedback would enhance educational quality. However, briefing and debriefing culture is almost absent in our operating room. Feedback, if at all given, is traditionally negative, pointing out errors, while wanting to draw attention to strengths and success. This study aimed to examine the current status of performance feedback in the operating room and to evaluate the effect of an educational intervention "SHARP" on the quality of performance feedback.
methodsThis was a prospective, pre-post interventional study conducted at the National Referral Hospital, in Bhutan. Surgeons (trainers) and the surgical residents (trainees) performing elective surgical cases under general anesthesia were assessed for pre-intervention and post-intervention performance feedback using a validated Objective Structured Assessment of Debriefing (OSAD) based questionnaire. A validated SHARP 5-Step Feedback tool for surgery (Setting up learning objectives, How did it go, Address concerns, Review learning points, and Plan ahead) was used as an intervention. The data were analyzed using SPSS version 23 and the paired t-test was used to compare the pre-post OSAD scores, and p < 0.05 is considered statistically significant.
resultsThe existing performance feedback was unacceptably low. With the 'SHARP' intervention, the post-intervention OSAD score significantly increased compared to the pre-intervention score (26.7 ± 1.72 vs. 22.0 ± 2.67 for post-intervention and pre-intervention respectively, effect size 1.9, p < 0.001). An educational tool 'SHARP' effectively improves the quality of feedback in the operating room.
conclusionThe existing performance feedback is low in the operating room. Performance feedback can be efficient, effective, and enduring if a culture of structured feedback is in place. Educational tools like 'SHARP' can facilitate experiential learning in the surgical classroom.
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.