Performance in practice; exploring trainer and trainee experiences of user-designed formative assessment tools

ABSTRACT

Introduction

General Practice training in Ireland currently has various methods of formative assessment and feedback delivered to trainees. In 2018 the Irish College of General Practitioners commissioned the generation of two new user-designed formative feedback tools that would allow trainee feedback to drive learning. These tools became known as the Performance in Practice (PiP) tools.

Aims

To explore the experiences of General Practice (GP) trainers and trainees having completed a pilot of using the PiP tools for 4 months.

Methods

An explorative phenomenological approach was taken to understand the experiences of trainers and trainees. One to one interviews were conducted, and the transcripts analysed for themes and sub-theme via Template analysis.

Results

User experiences focused on two main areas; educational value and acceptability. In relation to educational value, the PiP tools were seen as an improvement over established forms of formative feedback, as they were centred around the curriculum and therefore reflected the unique multifaceted requirements of an independently practising GP. Acceptability primarily focused around data governance and structures, as well as practical issues such as ease of software use.

Conclusions

Overall, the experience of using the PiP tools was positive for both trainers and trainees. Future plans to further explore implementation of the PiP tools have been significantly informed by this research.

KEYWORDS:

• Formative assessment
• work-based assessment
• feedback
• postgraduate education
• primary care

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Acknowledgments

We thank all those trainers and trainees who took part in this pilot and Iheed, for the generous use and maintenance of their online platform which hosted the PiP tools during the pilot.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.

Ethical Approval

This study was approved by the institution’s Research Ethics Committee. Reference ‘Feedback for Learning; Pilot evaluation study’.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by funding from the National Doctors Training and Planning Office, Health Service Executive, Dublin, Ireland, under the reference of ‘User Directed WBAs: Consultation and Implementation’.