Cited by 50Innovations in Medical EducationStudent Assessment and FeedbackClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Fostering a Feedback Mindset: A Qualitative Exploration of Medical Students’ Feedback Experiences With Longitudinal Coaches

Bakke, Brian M., Sheu, Leslie, Hauer, Karen E.·2020·Academic Medicine

Abstract

Purpose: Feedback is important for medical students’ development. Recent conceptualizations of feedback as a dialogue between feedback provider and recipient point to longitudinal relationships as a facilitator of effective feedback discussions. This study illuminates how medical students experience feedback within a longitudinal relationship with a physician coach. Method: In this qualitative study, second-year medical students from the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine participated in semistructured interviews that explored their experiences discussing feedback within longitudinal, nonevaluative coaching relationships. Interviews occurred between May and October 2018. Interview questions addressed students’ experiences receiving feedback from their coach, how and when they used this feedback, and how their relationship with their coach influenced engagement in feedback discussions. Interviews were analyzed using constructivist grounded theory. Results: Seventeen students participated. The authors identified 3 major themes. First, students’ development of a feedback mindset: Over time, students came to view feedback as an invaluable component of their training. Second, setting the stage for feedback: Establishing feedback routines and a low-stakes environment for developing clinical skills were important facilitators of effective feedback discussions. Third, interpreting and acting upon feedback: Students described identifying, receiving, and implementing tailored and individualized feedback in an iterative fashion. As students gained comfort and trust in their coaches’ feedback, they reported increasingly engaging in feedback conversations for learning. Conclusions: Through recurring feedback opportunities and iterative feedback discussions with coaches, students came to view feedback as essential for growth and learning. Longitudinal coaching relationships can positively influence how students conceptualize and engage in feedback discussions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/acm.0000000000003012

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 51 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bakke, B. M., Sheu, L., & Hauer, K. E.
Affiliations
Association of American Medical Colleges (US)
Corresponding author
Bakke, Brian M.
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
2019-10-01
Volume
95
Issue
7
Pages
1057-1065
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2978448471
Cited by
50
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2
FWCI
4.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
medical students, clinical skills development, trust in coaches, iterative feedback, medical education
MeSH terms
Mentoring, Adult, Clinical Competence, Communication, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Feedback, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Learning, Male, San Francisco, Students, Medical, Universities, Problem-Based Learning, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review