Feedback With Performance Metric Scorecards Improves Resident Satisfaction but Does Not Impact Clinical Performance. Issue 4 (20th May 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Mamtani, Mira; Shofer, Frances S.; Sackeim, Alexander; Conlon, Lauren; Scott, Kevin; Mills, Angela M.
• Editors: Cico, Stephen J.
• Is Part Of: AEM education and training. Volume 3:Issue 4(2019)
• Page Start: 323
• Page End: 330
• Publication Date: 2019-05-20
• Subjects: Emergency medicine -- Study and teaching -- Periodicals; Emergency medicine -- Study and teaching -- United States -- Periodicals; Periodicals; 616.025
• DOI: 10.1002/aet2.10348
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2472-5390

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: The Emergency Medicine Milestone Project, a framework for assessing competencies, has been used as a method of providing focused resident feedback. However, the emergency medicine milestones do not include specific objective data about resident clinical efficiency and productivity, and studies have shown that milestone‐based feedback does not improve resident satisfaction with the feedback process. We examined whether providing performance metric reports to resident physicians improves their satisfaction with the feedback process and their clinical performance. Methods: We conducted a three‐phase stepped‐wedge randomized pilot study of emergency medicine residents at a single, urban academic site. In phase 1, all residents received traditional feedback; in phase 2, residents were randomized to receive traditional feedback (control group) or traditional feedback with performance metric reports (intervention group); and in phase 3, all residents received monthly performance metric reports and traditional feedback. To assess resident satisfaction with the feedback process, surveys using 6‐point Likert scales were administered at each study phase and analyzed using two‐sample t‐tests. Analysis of variance in repeated measures was performed to compare impact of feedback on resident clinical performance, specifically patient treatment time (PTT) and patient visits per hour. Results: Forty‐one residents participated in the trial of which 21 were randomized to the intervention group and 20 in the control group. Ninety percent of residents liked receiving the report and 74% believed that it better prepared them for expectations of becoming an attending physician. Additionally, residents randomized to the intervention group reported higher satisfaction (p = 0.01) with the quality of the feedback compared to residents in the control group. However, receiving performance metric reports, regardless of study phase or postgraduate year status, did not affect clinical performance, specifically PTT (183 minutes vs. 177 minutes, p = 0.34) or patients visits per hour (0.99 vs. 1.04, p = 0.46). Conclusions: While feedback with performance metric reports did not improve resident clinical performance, resident physicians were more satisfied with the feedback process, and a majority of residents expressed liking the reports and felt that it better prepared them to become attending physicians. Residency training programs could consider augmenting feedback with performance metric reports to aide in the transition from resident to attending physician.