ArticleCJEM2026
The impact of faculty development interventions on supervisor narrative feedback quality in competency-based medical education.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesImproving the feedback that supervisors provide trainees in medical education is challenging. The development of automated methods of rating the quality of narrative feedback has created an opportunity to quantify the impact of interventions focused on this goal.
methodsWe used a previously developed natural language processing model based on the Quality Assessment of Learning (QuAL) score to rate the quality of each comment in our Royal College Emergency Medicine specialty training program from July 2018 to June 2024. We quantified the effectiveness of three faculty development interventions (e-mail feedback, audit and feedback workshops, and assessment form modifications) by comparing pre- and post-intervention QuAL scores.
resultsDuring the study period 9709 narrative comments were scored. The average QuAL score rose from 3.2/5 in 2019 to 4.5/5 in 2024. All interventions resulted in an overall improvement in the mean QuAL score as measured by assessor weighted mean: individual e-mail with suggestions for improvement (35.1%), assessment form template change (24.3%), workshop (19.1%) and individual e-mail thanking them for their high-quality comments (11.0%).
conclusionsBy combining a multi-faceted faculty development approach with a scalable measurement of our outcome, we have demonstrated an improvement in supervisor narrative comment quality and quantified the impact of each intervention. While it is likely that the interventions were complementary, individual e-mails to faculty with suggestions for improvement and modifications to the assessment form were associated with largest improvements in quality. These results may guide to other programs seeking to improve the quality of supervisor narrative comments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42782465What 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.