"Are They Listening, and Do They Find It Useful?"-Evaluation of Mid-Rotation Formative Subjective and Objective Feedback to Radiology Trainees

• Published in: Current problems in diagnostic radiology Vol. 53; no. 1; pp. 114 - 120
• Main Authors: Tang, Stephen M, Durieux, Jared C, Faraji, Navid, Mohamed, Inas, Wien, Michael, Nayate, Ameya P
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.01.2024
• Subjects: Clinical Competence; Feedback; Humans; Internship and Residency; Radiography; Radiology - education; Surveys and Questionnaires
• ISSN: 0363-0188; 1535-6302
• DOI: 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2023.08.006

Residents commonly receive only end-of-rotation evaluations and thus are often unaware of their progress during a rotation. In 2021, our neuroradiology section instituted mid-rotation feedback in which rotating residents received formative subjective and objective feedback. The purpose of this study was to describe our feedback method and to evaluate if residents found it helpful. Radiology residents rotate 3-4 times on the neuroradiology service for 1-month blocks. At the midpoint of the rotation (2 weeks), 7-10 neuroradiology attendings discussed the rotating residents' subjective performance. One attending was tasked with facilitating this discussion and taking notes. Objective metrics were obtained from our dictation software. Compiled feedback was relayed to residents via email. A 16-question anonymous survey was sent to 39 radiology residents (R1-R4) to evaluate the perceived value of mid-rotation feedback. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were computed using logistic regression. Sixty-nine percent (27/39) of residents responded to the survey; 92.6% (25/27) of residents reported receiving mid-rotation feedback in ≥50% of neuroradiology rotations; 92.3% (24/26) of residents found the subjective feedback helpful; 88.4% (23/26) of residents reported modifying their performance as suggested (100% R1-R2 vs 70% R3-R4; OR: 15.4 CI:1.26, >30.0);59.1% (13/22) of residents found the objective metrics helpful (75% R1-R2 vs 40% R3-R4; OR: 3.92 CI:0.74, 24.39) and 68.2% (15/22) stated they modified their performance based on these metrics (83.3% R1-R2 vs 50.0% R3-R4; OR:4.2 CI:0.73, 30.55); and 84.6% (22/26) of residents stated that mid-rotation subjective feedback and 45.5% (10/22) stated that mid-rotation objective feedback should be implemented in other sections. Majority of residents found mid-rotation feedback to be helpful in informing them about their progress and areas for improvement in the neuroradiology rotation, more so for subjective feedback than objective feedback. The majority of residents stated all rotations should provide mid-rotation subjective feedback.