Article Sidebar
Article Details
Copyright remains in the Author’s name. The work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - Noncommercial Works License. Authors are required to complete and sign an Author Agreement form that outlines Author and Publisher rights and terms of publication. The Agreement form should be uploaded along with other submissions files and any submission will be considered incomplete without it [forthcoming].
Material submitted for publication in the AJHPE is accepted provided it has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere. Please inform the editorial team if the main findings of your paper have been presented at a conference and published in abstract form, to avoid copyright infringement. The AJHPE does not hold itself responsible for statements made by the authors. The corresponding author should also indicate if the research forms part of a postgraduate short report, dissertation or thesis.
Previously published images
If an image/figure has been previously published, permission to reproduce or alter it must be obtained by the authors from the original publisher and the figure legend must give full credit to the original source. This credit should be accompanied by a letter indicating that permission to reproduce the image has been granted to the author/s. This letter should be uploaded as a supplementary file during submission.Main Article Content
Feedback as a means to improve clinical competencies: Consultants’ perceptions of the quality of feedback given to registrars
Abstract
Background. Effective supervision by consultants in postgraduate medical education involves the process of feedback. Giving feedback may be challenging for consultants who have no formal training in this process, which may be further compounded in heterogeneous diverse settings.
Objective. To explore consultants’ perceptions of feedback to registrars in a multicultural, multilingual diverse academic hospital setting.
Methods. Thirty-seven consultants consented to completing a questionnaire on what, when, where, how often, and how feedback was provided, as well as on the type and effect of feedback to registrars. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data. Differences between groups were calculated using Pearson’s χ² test for independent variables, with a p-value of <0.05 regarded as being statistically significant.
Results. Only 40% of consultants reported that they provided feedback often or always and 62.2% reported that standards were not predetermined and communicated to registrars. When feedback was provided, it was based on concrete observations of performance (78.4%), it incorporated a plan for improvement (72.9%) and it supplied information on techniques performed incorrectly (72.9%). Only 40.5% of consultants provided feedback on procedures performed correctly. Moreover, only half of the consultants believed they were proficient at giving feedback.
Conclusion. Consultants need to develop the art of giving feedback through appropriate training so that they are more comfortable and proficient with the various aspects of feedback, leading to a positive effect on enhancing registrar training.
