WIP 26 - Beyond the Grade: Exploring Written Feedback in a Pediatric Clerkship

Publication Number: WIP 26.7422

Stephen R. Scholl, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, United States; Alyssa MacMahon, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, United States

Background: Feedback is a critical component of clinical education, facilitating medical students’ growth through constructive assessments of their demonstrated knowledge, skills, and professionalism. However, despite extensive literature outlining the best practices for providing feedback, studies suggest a gap between what is recommended and what is actually implemented by evaluators, with feedback often perceived as insufficient or failing to address key clinical skills., Further, there is little insight into the actual content and themes present in the written feedback provided to medical students. In the unique setting of the Uniformed Services University (USU) pediatrics clerkship—a 5-week clerkship stratified across 11 geographically diverse sites in the Military Health System—this study seeks to address this gap, exploring the characteristics and themes within written feedback for medical students.

Objective: To examine the characteristics and themes within the written feedback USU medical students receive during their pediatric clerkship.

Design/Methods: This study is a qualitative, retrospective analysis of written feedback comments (N=955) provided to USU medical students during their pediatric clerkship in 2023; USU IRB protocol DBS.2024.730. At each site, preceptors were prompted to comment on the domains of Professionalism, Reporting, Interpreting, Managing, and Educating, including one area for student growth. The feedback was de-identified, and duplicates and vague, overly brief comments (e.g., “good job”) were excluded.
Thematic analysis was conducted using the inductive approach outlined by Kiger & Varpio (2020). Initially, two investigators independently open-coded a random sample of 50 feedback comments to generate preliminary codes. Investigators then met to discuss and refine the codes, developing a final codebook for further analysis. The next phase of the study involves continuing independent coding of at least 100 additional comments (or until theoretical saturation is achieved) to identify recurring themes and explore other patterns that arise from the data.