ArticleThe clinical teacher2026
Assessing the Quality of Narrative Feedback in Entrustable Professional Activities Using the EFeCT Feedback Scoring Tool.
Article in The clinical teacher, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessing the Quality of Narrative Feedback in Entrustable Professional Activities Using the EFeCT Feedback Scoring Tool.The clinical teacher · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCompetency-based medical education (CBME) is the cornerstone of undergraduate training in Canada. Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) assess competency in professional tasks, with narrative feedback being a key component. There is currently a lack of published literature on the quality of narrative feedback in EPA observations in undergraduate medical education. This study explores the quality of narrative feedback in EPA observations provided to medical students.
methodsThe quality of narrative feedback in a random sample of anonymised EPA observations from Year 3 students was evaluated using the Evaluation of Feedback Captured Tool (EFeCT). The EFeCT tool explores five facets of quality feedback, with a score of five indicating high-quality feedback. Three evaluators independently assessed the quality of narrative feedback using the EFeCT tool. Any differences in score were resolved through discussion to reach consensus.
resultsIn the 2022-2023 academic year, 15,240 EPA observations were completed for year 3 students. A subset of 748 observations was analysed. Of these, one scored 0, seven scored 1, 33 scored 2, 115 scored 3, 151 scored 4 and 441 scored 5 on the EFeCT tool. The mean EFeCT score was 4.3.
conclusionsOverall, the majority of EPA narratives provided moderate to high-quality feedback to students. However, variability was evident, and many EPA narratives were missing one or more elements of high-quality feedback. This could result in significant implications for learner development. Addressing contextual factors such as clinical workload and creating faculty development opportunities may support faculty in providing high-quality narrative feedback.
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.