Responses

Download PDFPDF
Verification and feedback for medical students: an observational study during general practice rotations
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses [https://authors.bmj.com/after-submitting/rapid-responses/].
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses [https://www.bmj.com/company/journals-terms-and-conditions-for-rapid-responses/] and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice [https://www.bmj.com/company/your-privacy/].
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Re: [Verification and feedback for medical students: an observational study during general practice rotations]
    • Taimur Shafi, Medical Student King's College London
    • Other Contributors:
      • Haider Manzar, Medical Student
      • Naveed Khan, Medical Student
      • Zohaib Siddiqui, Medical Student
      • Faisel Alam, Medical Student
      • Mohammad Zaman, Medical Student

    Dear Editor,

    It was with great pleasure that we read the observational study by Bosner et al [1] which centres on an aspect salient to all medical students: clinical teacher feedback [2][3][4]. A factor highlighted by Lempp et al, found that students were most pleased with teachers who were approachable and provided them with constructive criticism [4].

    As undergraduate medical students at the largest centre for healthcare education in Europe [5], we benefit from experiences in varied teaching settings; ranging from one-to-one sessions to class sizes of up to 450 students. Our clinical curriculum places strong emphasis in the primary health care setting - where we have accumulated nearly 300 hours between us in around 40 practices, both in and around London.

    Whilst Bosner et al [1] have presented a well-organised and structured study; we challenge some of the intricacies affecting its overall validity and subsequent conclusions, and therefore propose suggestions for improvements. There is an absence of information pertaining to whether the observers (fifth year medical students) were appropriately trained to effectively judge the quality of feedback given by their seniors (clinical teachers). This is then coupled with no mention of any guidelines or reference used as a “benchmark” for this assessment. Both present issues regarding quality assurance - the necessity and impact of which has been highlighted by Lievens [6].

    The presence of the ob...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.