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: Registrars’ perceptions of the quality of feedback provided by consultants in an academic hospital setting
Abstract
Background. The training of novices, in any field, to achieve the optimum state of cognitive, clinical, technical and professional development requires a variety of teaching methodologies, including the process of feedback. Feedback is defined as a process where the desired standard of proficiency in a task has already been established and communicated to the student before gaps in performing the task or in the level of knowledge are identified. The process of feedback has often been evaluated and has consistently revealed students’ dissatisfaction with the amount and type of feedback they receive in their clinical and postgraduate training, as they perceive it to be inadequate, inappropriate or non-existent.
Objectives. To investigate the perceptions of the quality of feedback received by a diverse, heterogeneous population of registrars in postgraduate training at an academic hospital.
Methods. A study was conducted using a questionnaire to determine the perceptions of all registrars in the six major clinical training programmes with regard to the quality, efficacy and effectiveness of feedback received during clinical training. Descriptive statistics were used to interpret the responses of the registrars, with mean values being calculated.
Results. Perceptions of the quality of feedback received differed across disciplines.
Overall, the registrars rated the feedback they received as poor. The majority (51.4%) reported that both formal and informal feedback was only sometimes, even rarely, received during all encounters with consultants. Others (51.3%) felt that the feedback received was unacceptable, and did not perceive it to be based on concrete observations of performance. The proficiency of consultants in giving feedback was scored as unacceptable by 64.8% of registrars.
Conclusion. Registrars in training regard feedback as an essential component
of their postgraduate medical education and as an important component of achieving clinical competence. More formalised processes need to be implemented. The majority of registrars agreed that consultants required training in providing feedback effectively.
