Cited by 118Innovations in Medical EducationStudent Assessment and FeedbackClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Encouraging residents to seek feedback.

Open access
Delva, Dianne, Sargeant, Joan, Miller, Stephen, Holland, Joanna, Alexiadis Brown, Peggy, Leblanc, Constance, Lightfoot, Kathryn, Mann, Karen·2013·Medical Teacher

Abstract

AIM: To explore resident and faculty perceptions of the feedback process, especially residents' feedback-seeking activities. METHODS: We conducted focus groups of faculty and residents exploring experiences in giving and receiving feedback, feedback-seeking, and suggestions to support feedback-seeking. Using qualitative methods and an iterative process, all authors analyzed the transcribed audiotapes to identify and confirm themes. RESULTS: Emerging themes fit a framework situating resident feedback-seeking as dependent on four central factors: (1) learning/workplace culture, (2) relationships, (3) purpose/quality of feedback, (4) emotional responses to feedback. Residents and faculty agreed on many supports and barriers to feedback-seeking. Strengthening the workplace/learning culture through longitudinal experiences, use of feedback forms and explicit expectations for residents to seek feedback, coupled with providing a sense of safety and adequate time for observation and providing feedback were suggested. Tensions between faculty and resident perceptions regarding feedback-seeking related to fear of being found deficient, the emotional costs related to corrective feedback and perceptions that completing clinical work is more valued than learning. CONCLUSION: Resident feedback-seeking is influenced by multiple factors requiring attention to both faculty and learner roles. Further study of specific influences and strategies to mitigate the tensions will inform how best to support residents in seeking feedback.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/0142159x.2013.806791

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Miles MB, Huberman AM. 1994. Qulatiative Data Analysis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Delva, D., Sargeant, J., Miller, S., Holland, J., Alexiadis Brown, P., Leblanc, C., Lightfoot, K., & Mann, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Dalhousie University (CA)
Corresponding author
Delva, Dianne
Venue
Medical Teacher
Published
2013-07-12
Volume
35
Issue
12
Pages
e1625-e1631
ISSN
  • 0142-159X (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-187X
OpenAlex
W2164632976
Cited by
118
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
9.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Teacher (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Dalhousie University
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
feedback seeking, medical residents, teacher perceptions, organizational culture, teacher-student relationship, corrective feedback, feedback forms, graduate medical education, barriers to feedback, student safety
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Clinical Competence, Education, Medical, Graduate, Faculty, Medical, Feedback, Female, Humans, Internship and Residency, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Focus Groups, 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