P3D186: Never/always: Disconnect Between Trainee and Faculty Perception of Feedback Frequency

Background: In 2021-2022, Jacobi pediatrics residents were asked about ways to improve the education in the program. Overwhelmingly, residents responded that there was not adequate resident feedback. In order to better understand both the resident and faculty view of feedback, the program decided to survey both parties to identify areas for improvement and differences in perception between the two groups.
Providing residents meaningful, constructive and timely feedback is a vital component of medical education. The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify trainee and faculty perceptions of feedback quality and frequency at one residency program.

Methods: This study was performed via an online survey sent to trainees and faculty. Trainees received a survey to determine their views on feedback, and their responses were gathered and reviewed. Faculty were subsequently sent a survey with similar questions. After a faculty member submitted a response to a question, they were shown resident responses and asked if the trainee perspective changed their response. Finally, both groups were asked for suggestions on how to improve feedback.

Results: 18 trainees and 20 faculty members submitted completed surveys. All trainees who responded reported that they do not received adequate feedback. Three major themes from the resident answers were that feedback was: “irregular”, “nonspecific”, and “untimely”. Sixty percent of surveyed faculty, in contrast, felt that adequate feedback was being given, while forty percent felt it was not. Faculty felt that feedback was given at scheduled times and throughout clinical discussions. Many indicated that residents did not always identify feedback when it was given, especially informally or during patient encounters or procedures. After reviewing the trainee comments, faculty responses shifted significantly. Faculty agreed that residents do not receive enough formal, scheduled feedback or specific in-the-moment feedback. Interestingly, both groups identified similar ways to improve feedback: regularly scheduled formal sessions, clearly identifying feedback when being given in both formal and informal settings, and attendings observing more trainee-patient interactions. Faculty and trainees felt that additional training in giving and receiving feedback would be helpful.

Conclusion: A discrepancy in perceptions of feedback between faculty and trainees has the potential to create dissatisfaction amongst both groups and to negatively impact the quality of residency training. When trainees’ candid views on feedback were shared with faculty, most faculty respondents generally agreed and acknowledged that many of the trainee concerns were valid. By opening lines of communication and having an opportunity for resident concerns to be shared, faculty perceptions became more closely aligned with that of the residents. When both groups were separately given the opportunity to brainstorm ways to improve feedback for residents, they came up with similar resolutions and the two groups were able to generate multiple cohesive suggestions for improvement.