Abstract
The ISCP (Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum Programme) was introduced in 2007. It heralded a shift in surgical training from the traditional apprenticeship model, to a system where competence is assessed regularly within the workplace. Central to ISCP is the recording of Workplace Based Assessments, such as PBA (procedure-based assessment) and DOPS (Direct Observation of Procedural Skills). These are assessments “for” learning rather than assessments “of” learning and central to their purpose is detailed feedback from trainer to trainee. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of the feedback recorded on ISCP.
The anonymised ISCP portfolios for 170 core and specialty urology trainees working in 16 deaneries were analysed. Over a three month period 469 DOPS and 592 PBAs were recorded and the presence and quality of assessors’ feedback were evaluated according to the presence of five criteria: • Encouragement through positive language, • Including strengths, • Raising appropriate development needs, • Suggestions for appropriate corrective action, • Providing explanations.
Feedback was recorded in 49% and 67% of PBAs and DOPS respectively. In those assessments where feedback was recorded, positive language was used in 83% in PBAs and 70% in DOPS. Strengths were recorded in 53% for both tools. Developmental needs, suggestions for development and detailed explanation were recorded in 25%, 26%, 29% for PBAs and 24%, 23%, 19% for DOPS respectively.
This study highlights the lack of feedback being recorded on ISCP and the paucity of good quality feedback when it was given.