A randomised controlled trial of feedback to improve patient satisfaction and consultation skills in medical students.
Clinical competence
Clinical skills
Formative feedback
Health behaviour
Medical education
Medical students
Patient satisfaction
Randomised controlled trial
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Aug 2020
20 Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
12
09
2019
accepted:
22
07
2020
entrez:
22
8
2020
pubmed:
21
8
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The use of feedback has been integral to medical student learning, but rigorous evidence to evaluate its education effect is limited, especially in the role of patient feedback in clinical teaching and practice improvement. The aim of the Patient Teaching Associate (PTA) Feedback Study was to evaluate whether additional written consumer feedback on patient satisfaction improved consultation skills among medical students and whether multisource feedback (MSF) improved student performance. In this single site, double-blinded randomised controlled trial, 71 eligible medical students from two universities in their first clinical year were allocated to intervention or control and followed up for one semester. They participated in five simulated student-led consultations in a teaching clinic with patient volunteers living with chronic illness. Students in the intervention group received additional written feedback on patient satisfaction combined with guided self-reflection. The control group received usual immediate formative multisource feedback from tutors, patients and peers. Student characteristics, baseline patient-rated satisfaction scores and tutor-rated consultation skills were measured. Follow-up assessments were complete in 70 students attending the MSF program. At the final consultation episodes, both groups improved patient-rated rapport (P = 0.002), tutor-rated patient-centeredness and tutor-rated overall consultation skills (P = 0.01). The intervention group showed significantly better tutor-rated patient-centeredness (P = 0.003) comparing with the control group. Distress relief, communication comfort, rapport reported by patients and tutor-rated clinical skills did not differ significantly between the two groups. The innovative multisource feedback program effectively improved consultation skills in medical students. Structured written consumer feedback combined with guided student reflection further improved patient-centred practice and effectively enhanced the benefit of an MSF model. This strategy might provide a valuable adjunct to communication skills education for medical students. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Number ACTRN12613001055796 .
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The use of feedback has been integral to medical student learning, but rigorous evidence to evaluate its education effect is limited, especially in the role of patient feedback in clinical teaching and practice improvement. The aim of the Patient Teaching Associate (PTA) Feedback Study was to evaluate whether additional written consumer feedback on patient satisfaction improved consultation skills among medical students and whether multisource feedback (MSF) improved student performance.
METHODS
METHODS
In this single site, double-blinded randomised controlled trial, 71 eligible medical students from two universities in their first clinical year were allocated to intervention or control and followed up for one semester. They participated in five simulated student-led consultations in a teaching clinic with patient volunteers living with chronic illness. Students in the intervention group received additional written feedback on patient satisfaction combined with guided self-reflection. The control group received usual immediate formative multisource feedback from tutors, patients and peers. Student characteristics, baseline patient-rated satisfaction scores and tutor-rated consultation skills were measured.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Follow-up assessments were complete in 70 students attending the MSF program. At the final consultation episodes, both groups improved patient-rated rapport (P = 0.002), tutor-rated patient-centeredness and tutor-rated overall consultation skills (P = 0.01). The intervention group showed significantly better tutor-rated patient-centeredness (P = 0.003) comparing with the control group. Distress relief, communication comfort, rapport reported by patients and tutor-rated clinical skills did not differ significantly between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The innovative multisource feedback program effectively improved consultation skills in medical students. Structured written consumer feedback combined with guided student reflection further improved patient-centred practice and effectively enhanced the benefit of an MSF model. This strategy might provide a valuable adjunct to communication skills education for medical students.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Number ACTRN12613001055796 .
Identifiants
pubmed: 32819352
doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02171-9
pii: 10.1186/s12909-020-02171-9
pmc: PMC7439652
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
277Subventions
Organisme : Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University
ID : CF13/779 - 2013000356
Références
AEM Educ Train. 2017 Mar 22;1(2):98-109
pubmed: 30051017
Can Med Educ J. 2013 Mar 31;4(1):e86-95
pubmed: 26451206
Med Educ. 2010 Feb;44(2):156-64
pubmed: 20059676
BMC Med Educ. 2014 Apr 11;14:76
pubmed: 24725268
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2015 Spring;35(2):91-8
pubmed: 26115108
Psychiatr Serv. 2011 Dec;62(12):1423-9
pubmed: 22193788
BMJ. 2000 Apr 15;320(7241):1043-8
pubmed: 10764366
Intern Med J. 2015 Aug;45(8):883-4
pubmed: 26220036
BMJ. 2002 Oct 12;325(7368):818-21
pubmed: 12376445
J Med Educ. 1978 Oct;53(10):831-6
pubmed: 712770
Med Educ. 2009 Jun;43(6):599-600
pubmed: 19493186
Fam Pract. 2002 Jun;19(3):257-63
pubmed: 11978716
Trials. 2014 Sep 17;15:361
pubmed: 25227174
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2003 Winter;23(1):4-12
pubmed: 12739254
Acad Med. 2000 May;75(5):537
pubmed: 10824815
Br J Gen Pract. 1996 Jan;46(402):26-31
pubmed: 8745848
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007 Jan;161(1):44-9
pubmed: 17199066
Acad Med. 2004 May;79(5):458-63
pubmed: 15107286
J Surg Educ. 2013 Jul-Aug;70(4):475-86
pubmed: 23725935
Patient Educ Couns. 2007 Aug;67(3):333-42
pubmed: 17574367
Simul Healthc. 2008 Fall;3(3):161-9
pubmed: 19088660
Acad Med. 2014 Mar;89(3):511-6
pubmed: 24448051
Br J Gen Pract. 1990 Dec;40(341):487-90
pubmed: 2282225
J Hosp Med. 2015 Aug;10(8):497-502
pubmed: 26014339
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13;(6):CD000259
pubmed: 22696318
BMJ. 2000 Apr 15;320(7241):1048-53
pubmed: 10764367
Med Educ. 2010 Jan;44(1):101-8
pubmed: 20078761