Insight into undergraduate feedback of clinical practice: Junior Doctors vs Consultants

Abstract

This article was migrated. The article was not marked as recommended. Background: Constructive feedback is essential to improve clinical practice and is therefore discussed extensively in educational literature. Despite this, students regularly express dissatisfaction with their feedback at medical school. Many challenges to feedback in clinical settings have been documented but few were based on the students perspectives. This qualitative study explores the students experiences of feedback in clinical settings, in their third year at Imperial College London. Method: Seven third year medical students who were based at Hillingdon Hospital during February 2014 were interviewed in a semi-structured format on their experience of feedback in clinical settings. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using a thematic analytical approach. Results: The students claimed that they received little feedback and usually in an ad-hoc manner. Feedback was inconsistent between different clinicians, confusing some participants. There was a marked difference in quality and quantity of feedback between the consultants and junior doctors, with the majority of students preferring feedback from juniors. Junior doctors feedback focussed on medical school assessments, whilst the consultants was geared towards daily clinical practice. Discussion: Feedback provided by both clinician groups was heavily influenced by their own experiences and working environments. For consultants this was their vast clinical experience and considerable time constraints, whereas juniors had more time for students and could focus on exam techniques. Empowering students to take an active role in feedback, either seeking or clarifying the differences may be of help. Conclusion: Though feedback from consultants and junior doctors is not aligned, both are useful in shaping future clinicians.