Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41833540›Full record

ArticleThe clinical teacher2026

DMAIC-ing a Difference: Improving Formative Feedback in Clinical Clerkships.

Ajleeta Nestani, Benjamin Beduhn, Carrie Tamarelli, Allison Ruff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The clinical teacher, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ajleeta NestaniDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Benjamin BeduhnDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Carrie TamarelliDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Allison RuffDepartment of General Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFormative feedback is integral to the educational process. We recognised the need to improve our formative feedback due to variable quality, timeliness and depth. Our objective was to improve the quantity and quality of formative feedback given to medical students during clinical rotations using the Define-Measure-Analyse-Improve-Control (DMAIC) problem-solving method. APPROACH: Based on initial assessment of 50% of students receiving completed formative feedback forms within 72 h after request, we created a task force with representatives from each rotation that met biweekly for 1 year. High-quality feedback was that achieving a Quality of Assessment for Learning score ≥ 4. We identified stakeholders and conducted focus groups to determine barriers; solutions were implemented asynchronously with task force input and iteration as necessary. Formal data were collected upon task force implementation and periodically for a year. Three key deficiencies emerged: faculty education regarding formative feedback, time for completion and proximity of receiving forms to the encounter. Three methods for improvement were implemented at representative discretion: QR codes to access forms, shortened forms with modified verbiage and increased small-group faculty education. EVALUATION: Although formally collected baseline data indicated a 73.4% completion rate for formative feedback forms (higher than anticipated), which remained unchanged over the course of a year, the interventions significantly increased the frequency of high-quality feedback (37.5%-59.4%, p = 0.01), with improvement in all rotations. IMPLICATIONS: Implementation of a task force combined with increased education and potentially simplifying form completion and wording improved formative feedback quality while maintaining quantity.

Indexed as

Clinical ClerkshipFormative FeedbackStudents, MedicalClinical CompetenceEducational MeasurementFocus GroupsHumansQuality Improvementclinical rotationsformative feedbackquality improvement\

Identifiers

PMID41833540
PMCPMC12989470

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.