What Faculty Want: Academic and Community Emergency Physicians' Perceptions of Learner Feedback.

Introduction Faculty development is often deployed by central medical schools, with little guidance from end-users. How and what faculty members can use to improve their performance requires a deeper understanding from this user group. This study aims to explore how faculty perceive learners' feedback about their performance as educators. Methods This study is an explanatory mixed-method research, wherein community- and academic-based emergency medicine faculty members from nine regional hospitals were surveyed about their perceptions of various outcome measures for faculty development. Selected participants were invited to follow-up interviews. We analyzed the physicians' perceptions toward teaching and performance feedback data based on faculty's gender, role as academic or community physician, and work experience. Results The quantitative phase has 104 participants, and 15 of these were followed up with interviews. The gender of faculty does not have statistical or practical differences regarding their perceptions of learner feedback. Type of practice contains meaningful insights about the perception of learner feedback although it does not have a statistical difference. Moreover, an inverse trend exists between the physicians' years of experience and their perceived value of learner feedback. Kruskal-Wallis test showed a significant difference in the faculty's experience level and their perceived value for the metric "quantity of feedback commentary compared to their peer group" (H(4) = 12.21, p = 0.02), specifically between junior and senior faculty (p = 0.007). Some faculty stated that experienced faculty may perceive they have a very well-established style. Conclusions Diversifying feedback sources and delivery may be useful for different groups of faculty members. Junior physicians are more interested in gaining feedback about the quantity of their written feedback to students compared to more senior physicians. Learner feedback holds promise to trigger continuous improvement in community sites for those who fall behind compared to the academic sites.

Comparison of perceived educational value of an in-person versus virtual medical conference.

PURPOSE: Though prior literature has shown that virtual conferences improve accessibility and provide a comparable educational experience, further research is required to characterize their educational value. METHODS: In this repeated cross-sectional study, demographic and survey data were compared between attendance perspectives for the in-person student-led internal medicine conference held in 2019 and subsequent virtual conference held in 2020. RESULTS: There were 146 attendees at the in-person conference and 200 attendees at the online conference, in which 32 (22% response rate) and 52 responses (26% response rate) were gathered, respectively. Comparison of Likert Scale data via Mann-Whitney U Test revealed that learning objectives were better met in-person for the overall conference (p < 0.01) and didactic sessions (p < .05), but not for workshops, in which there was no significant difference. Survey takers noted the virtual conference to be more accessible on multiple factors, but felt as though their potential for interaction with other participants was more limited. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that though the virtual conference appeared more accessible to attendees, overall learning objectives for the conference and didactic sessions were better met in-person. Interestingly however, there was no observed difference in perceived educational value for small group workshops.

OBJECTIF: Bien que la littérature existante montre que les conférences virtuelles améliorent l'accessibilité et offrent une expérience éducative comparable à celles qui sont tenues en personne, des recherches plus approfondies s'imposent pour mieux qualifier leur valeur éducative. MÉTHODES: Dans cette étude transversale répétée, on compare les données démographiques et les données d'enquête concernant la perception des participants à une conférence en médecine interne tenue par des étudiants dans un lieu physique en 2019 et les données analogues concernant une conférence virtuelle qui s'est tenue en 2020. RÉSULTATS: Des 146 participants à la conférence en personne, 32 ont répondu au sondage (taux de réponse de 22 %); parmi les 200 participants à la conférence en ligne, les répondants étaient au nombre de 52 (taux de réponse de 26 %). Les données recueillies selon une échelle de Likert ont été comparées par le biais du test U de Mann-Whitney. Le résultat montre que tandis que les objectifs d'apprentissage étaient mieux atteints lors de la participation en personne pour la conférence en général (p <0,01) et les séances didactiques (p <0,05), pour les ateliers, il n'y avait pas de différence significative. Les participants à l'enquête ont noté que la conférence virtuelle était plus accessible à divers niveaux, mais ils ont trouvé que la possibilité d'interagir avec les autres participants y était plus limitée qu'à la conférence tenue en personne. CONCLUSIONS: D'après les résultats, bien que la conférence virtuelle ait semblé plus accessible aux participants, les objectifs d'apprentissage généraux pour la conférence et les séances didactiques ont été mieux atteints en personne. Il est toutefois intéressant de noter qu'aucune différence n'a été relevée en ce qui concerne la valeur éducative perçue des ateliers en petits groupes.

Enabling positive practice improvement through data-driven feedback: A model for understanding how data and self-perception lead to practice change.

PURPOSE: This article aims to identify the factors that affect physicians' experiences of receiving practice data and to use these data to develop a model describing how individuals interact with the data. METHODS: We designed an interview guide to study physicians' perspectives on audit and feedback. By intentional sampling, we recruited 15 physicians amongst gender groups, types of practice (academic vs community), and durations of practice. The interviews were conducted by a single author and transcribed without identifiers. We then began with an open coding analysis for all of the transcripts, and thereafter conducted axial coding to group the data into larger themes. RESULTS: Several attributes were identified as either enabling or counterproductive attributes for participant improvement. The final proposed model identifies different zones of engagement on the basis of both the individual practitioner's growth mindset and the quality of the existing data system. In the highest engagement zone, the mindset of the collective leadership is one of growth. Systemic supports are in place, which potentiates learning that may come from an individual motivated to use their own data. CONCLUSION: Our novel model depicts the relationship between data feedback systems and individuals' mindsets interact to augment or hinder clinical practice improvement. This model may provide leaders with a framework to examine their academic and administrative structures and how they might interface with performance feedback systems with clinicians.