Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Guidance for providing effective feedback in clinical supervision in postgraduate medical education: a systematic review
  1. Jessica Weallans1,2,
  2. Caroline Roberts1,2,
  3. Sarah Hamilton3,4,
  4. Stephen Parker3,5
  1. 1Gold Coast Mental Health and Specialist Services, Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
  2. 2School of Medicine, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
  3. 3Metro South Addiction and Mental Health Services, Metro South Hospital and Health Service, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  4. 4School of Human Services and Social Work, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  5. 5School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jessica Weallans, Gold Coast Mental Health and Specialist Services, Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service, Gold Coast, QLD 4215, Australia; jessica.weallans{at}health.qld.gov.au

Abstract

The primary aim was to systematically review the empirical evidence relating to models and guidance for providing effective feedback in clinical supervision occurring in postgraduate medical education contexts. A secondary aim was to identify the common and differentiating components of models and guidance for providing effective feedback in this context. A systematic review was conducted. Fifty-one records met the inclusion criteria, including 12 empirical studies. Empirical records meeting inclusion criteria were critically appraised. Qualitative content analysis was applied to the guidance on effective and ineffective feedback provision to identify key principles. A composite model was created synthesising the guidance identified for providing effective feedback. The evidence supporting specific models and guidance in postgraduate medical education was limited. However, there is evidence to support all of the commonly identified principles. In addition, a consensus about the principles of effective feedback in clinical supervision in postgraduate medical education was found.

  • medical education & training

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Twitter @DrParker_BNE

  • Contributors JW was the primary researcher, wrote the draft manuscript and made revisions in response to feedback from team members. CR acted as a second reviewer at various stages. CR and SH reviewed the study protocol draft and iterative manuscript drafts. SP provided support and guidance to JW throughout the review process, including with determination of the scope of the review and study design, acted as a third reviewer to resolve discrepancies where relevant, and provided detailed iterative manuscript reviews along with formatting assistance. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

  • Funding None.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.