Undergraduate medical students’ perceptions on the quality of feedback received during clinical rotations

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to report undergraduate medical students’ evaluation of the frequency and the quality of feedback received on their clinical performance during their clerkships.

Methods: This is a prospective observational study with a cross-sectional design including students from two cohorts (fifth and sixth years). In a structured interview, a questionnaire was used to report students’ perception on feedback.

Results: In all, 53.3% and 66% of the students (fifth, sixth years, respectively) had rarely received feedback from clinical teachers, and only around 18% of them had corrective feedback during patient encounter. Students rated feedback on domains of communication skills with patients, and investigations requested as poorly acknowledged. Students appreciate the impact of feedback, however, 85% and 94% of them (fifth, sixth years, respectively) had poor feedback seeking attitude. The overall process of feedback was rated by the two cohorts collectively as 43.6% poor and 24.5% fair.

Conclusion: Results demonstrate that feedback on students’ clinical performance is often not forthcoming and when offered it is deficient and fails to concentrate on the development of different clinical skills. This highlights the critical challenges that need to be addressed by teachers, medical education unit and all hospital departments in order to enhance giving effective and structured feedback to medical students during clerkships. Results also raise the extreme need for the establishment and enhancement of a culture that supports feedback among all levels of clinical supervisors.

The publication of this supplement has been made possible with the generous financial support of the Dr Hamza Alkholi Chair for Developing Medical Education in KSA.

Declaration of interest: This work was supported by a grant from the Faculty of Medicine at King Fahad Medical City, King Saudi bin AbdulAziz University for Health Sciences (Grant No. 10/33/1). The authors report no conflict of interest.