ArticleCJEM2026
Daily feedback in the emergency department: barriers and enablers.
Article in CJEM, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesFeedback is a cornerstone of competency-based medical education and critical for learner development in emergency medicine. Despite its importance, feedback conversations are often inconsistent, incomplete, or avoided-particularly when addressing areas for improvement. Anecdotal evidence suggests that clinical teachers may withhold constructive feedback due to fear of retaliation or negative consequences, yet this phenomenon remains underexplored in the literature.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional, multi-site, descriptive survey-based study of EM clinical teachers and trainees across three academic hospitals affiliated with McGill University. Using DeVellis' framework, we developed a survey tool exploring participant perceptions of daily feedback conversations, with emphasis on barriers, facilitators, and the influence of fear of retaliation. Surveys were distributed from April to June 2023 and analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis.
resultsOf 193 eligible participants, 87 (45%) completed the survey (39 clinical teachers, 48 residents). Both groups described daily feedback as a key learning tool, particularly for procedural skills, communication, and professionalism. Positive feedback was seen as motivating and growth-promoting. However, 25% of clinical teachers reported avoiding or softening difficult feedback due to concerns over resident defensiveness, being perceived as mistreating learners, or fear of negative evaluations. Structural barriers such as time constraints, lack of privacy, and the burdensome process of formal failure further limited constructive feedback delivery. Trainees, in contrast, rarely reported interpreting constructive feedback as punitive and instead expressed a desire for more honest, specific feedback. Time pressure, limited privacy, and unclear expectations were additional barriers described by both participant groups.
conclusionDaily feedback conversations in EM are shaped by complex interpersonal and contextual factors. While learners and teachers recognize feedback as essential, fear of retaliation and systemic inefficiencies contribute to hesitancy in delivering constructive feedback. Addressing these barriers through faculty development, learner training in feedback literacy, and clear differentiation between mistreatment and feedback may foster safer, more effective learning environments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41855024What 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.