Background: Feedback is critical in medical education, yet its effectiveness is often compromised by suboptimal utilization. Many trainees experience a disconnect between feedback they receive and their self-perceptions, which can inhibit their growth and performance. Common challenges include inconsistencies between evaluative feedback and trainees’ beliefs about their capabilities, concerns regarding the credibility of the feedback provided, and various barriers that hinder practical application of the feedback in clinical practice. We sought to enhance effectiveness of feedback for medical residents and students by personalizing the feedback process through a modified version of the evidence-based R2C2 feedback model.
Purpose: This research was conducted in two residency programs by 1 faculty member offering facilitated feedback sessions using the R2C2 model. This model traditionally involves 4 phases during summative feedback sessions: building relationship, exploring reactions then understanding of feedback, and finally coaching in areas where needed. We modified this approach by conducting step 1—relationship building—at the beginning of the rotation. During this phase, the faculty member asked trainees to identify 2-3 specific areas for observation, focusing on clinical reasoning, clinical knowledge, or other ACGME core competencies, grounded in the principle that trainees are best positioned to determine where they excel or need further insight. At the end of the rotation, she provided feedback on their specific areas of interest and any additional observations; she then followed steps 2-4 to mentor them through the feedback. Feedback sessions were conducted following this personalized approach, promoting 2-way mentoring dialogue rather than a traditional evaluative conversation.Pre and post surveys were administered to assess trainees’ perceptions of feedback relevance and effectiveness.
Description: Trainees often questioned the clarity and actionability of previous feedback received on the presurvey. The post-survey included questions about alignment with self-perceptions, credibility of feedback, areas of desired feedback, and confidence in applying feedback. Preliminary results indicated a positive shift, with trainees reporting that the feedback received was more pertinent and actionable compared to traditional methods. Notably, trainees indicated improvements in self-awareness of strengths and weaknesses and expressed interest in continuing this new feedback approach.
Conclusions: Traditional feedback methods often overlook trainees’ unique insights. By allowing trainees to identify their areas of interest, feedback becomes more relevant and actionable, fostering a greater sense of ownership of learning and development. Furthermore, focusing on specific areas allows faculty to provide concrete examples in final feedback, addressing the concern that feedback often lacks specificity and actionable steps for improvement.This personalized feedback process enhances relevance of feedback and transforms the conversation into a collaborative mentoring opportunity. Ultimately, this model aims to bridge the gap between the feedback trainees receive and their self-assessment, empowering them to take charge of their learning journey.