ArticleThe clinical teacher2025
Turning Chairs, Opening Minds: Redesigning Feedback in Medical Clerkships.
Article in The clinical teacher, 2025. 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.
- Perspectives of final-year medical students in Singapore on clinical role models: a mixed methods study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Turning Chairs, Opening Minds: Redesigning Feedback in Medical Clerkships.The clinical teacher · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical clerkships are essential for Dutch medical students to gain practical experience, but the learning environment in these rotations is often suboptimal. Hierarchical structures and cultural resistance to feedback can discourage students from voicing their concerns, limiting opportunities for mutual growth. To address this, we developed the Feedback and Feedforward Conversations (FFCs), inspired by healthcare 'mirror meetings', to foster bidirectional feedback in a psychologically safe setting. APPROACH: The FFCs consist of three phases: (1) Students share their experiences, while faculty listen silently with their backs turned; (2) students and faculty reflect separately, identifying key topics; and (3) a structured dialogue explores solutions and opportunities for improvement. Meetings were held quarterly in 2022 with small groups of students and faculty, facilitated in offsite, informal settings to ensure openness. EVALUATION: Reflections from post-meeting focus groups informed refinements, including structuring discussions around care delivery, collaboration and personal experiences. The evaluation highlighted the FFCs' strengths in fostering psychological safety, enhancing educational value and promoting meaningful relationships. Faculty found emotionally delivered feedback particularly impactful. IMPLICATIONS: The FFCs highlight the value of authentic student-faculty dialogue, emphasizing reciprocal feedback as a catalyst for professional growth and system improvement. The FFC tool shows potential for improving educational environments and fostering a culture of continuous learning. Future research should explore FFCs' broader applicability and long-term impact on clinical training and healthcare quality.
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.