Abstract
Abstract only
11025
Background: Feedback is an integral part of the learning process, allowing learners to remain on course in reaching competence in clinical, research, and interpersonal skills. However, the impact of teaching feedback during hematology-oncology training has not been studied. We aimed to identify barriers in delivering and receiving high-quality feedback in our fellowship program and to create a curriculum aimed at teaching fellows and faculty how to engage in more effective feedback conversations. Methods: This pilot study aimed at determining and addressing perceived barriers to high-quality feedback in the hematology-oncology fellowship program. A pre-intervention questionnaire, consisting of Likert scale and open-ended questions, was administered to identify barriers to giving feedback and to assess satisfaction with the quality of feedback received in our fellowship program. The results of the baseline questionnaire were utilized to build a virtual interactive three-session workshop provided by the ASCO Quality Training Program in which the importance of feedback and methods of providing effective feedback were taught. Topics included feedback set-up, low-inference observation, and a structured approach to reinforcing and modifying feedback. One month after the intervention the participants completed a follow up questionnaire. This project was developed through the ASH Medical Educators Institute. Results: Each questionnaire was completed by 11 participants. The two main barriers to high-quality feedback identified were the discomfort with both giving and receiving feedback, and the lack of protected time. At baseline only 54% of the participants reported they were comfortable giving feedback, increasing to 81% post- intervention. Pre-intervention, 81% of participants reported they did not have protected time for feedback, decreasing to 64% after the intervention and institution of weekly protected time for feedback. Half of the participants reported that the feedback was not actionable in the initial questionnaire, decreasing to 10% post-intervention. Overall, fellows reported that their feedback was mostly focused on notes, followed by presentations and interpersonal skills. Faculty reported that most of the feedback they received was about time management and patient care. Conclusions: This pilot study helped address a major barrier to improvement and growth within our training program and confirmed that feedback skills must be taught and practiced. A 6-hour virtual workshop showed tangible results in the satisfaction with and quality of feedback given to both fellows and faculty. Our findings are salient as we completed the intervention during the COVID pandemic. Limitations of the study include its single-institutional design and sample size. A major challenge anticipated is sustainability, which will be addressed by maintaining periodic lectures and assigning protected time for feedback.