Multi-source feedback in undergraduate medical education: a pilot study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.79283Abstract
Background: Multisource feedback (MSF) and 360-degree assessment collate feedback from multiple perspectives for a particular person. Since MSF aligns with programmatic assessment, undergraduate programs could theoretically incorporate this practice. This paper details the creation of an undergraduate medical education (UGME) MSF and its initial pilot.
Methods: The Medical Council of Canada (MCC) collaborated with researchers from four Canadian UGME programs to adapt an existing tool, MCC 360. They adjusted MSF components for clerkship and piloted the revised version at one Canadian medical school. Student participants completed a post-evaluation survey. Researchers chose the Norcini et al. framework to inform the tool adaptation and evaluation.
Results: The new MCC 360 UGME incorporated MSF from three rater groups (patients, self, and a mixed group of supervisors, residents, hospital staff and/or peers) and compiled it into an individualized report. An independent facilitator reviewed and discussed the report with the student. Students indicated that the MCC 360 UGME had a major to moderate impact on their learning. They appreciated receiving patient feedback and working with facilitators to identify areas of improvement. Although students found completing the MSF requirements to be burdensome, they found it to be acceptable to provide educational benefits.
Conclusion: Implementing MSF in Canadian UGME would allow clerkship students to access feedback from patients and others in the workplace. It would also socialize students to MSF early in their careers.
Downloads
References
1. Holmboe ES, Osman NY, Murphy CM, Kogan JR. The urgency of now: rethinking and improving assessment practices in medical education programs. Acad Med. 2023;98(8S):S37-S49. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000005251
2. Hageman MG, Ring D, Gregory PJ, Rubash HE, Harmon L. Do 360-degree feedback survey results relate to patient satisfaction measures? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(5):1590-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3981-3
3. Mazzi MA, Rimondini M, Deveugele M, et al. What do people appreciate in physicians’ communication? An international study with focus groups using videotaped medical consultations. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):1215-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12097
4. Emke AR, Cheng S, Chen L, Tian D, Dufault C. A novel approach to assessing professionalism in preclinical medical students using multisource feedback through paired self- and peer evaluations. Teach Learn Med. 2017;29(4):402-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2017.1306446
5. Hickson GB, Federspiel CF, Pichert JW, Miller CS, Gauld-Jaeger J, Bost P. Patient complaints and malpractice risk. JAMA. 2002;287(22):2951-7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.22.2951
6. Krupat E, Dienstag JL, Padrino SL, et al. Do professionalism lapses in medical school predict problems in residency and clinical practice? Acad Med. 2020;95(6):888-95. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000003145
7. Crosbie C, McDougall MA, Pangli H, Abu-Laban RB, Calder LA. College complaints against resident physicians in Canada: a retrospective analysis of Canadian Medical Protective Association data from 2013 to 2017. CMAJ Open. 2022;10(1):E35-42. https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.202110026
8. Lai MM, Roberts N, Mohebbi M, Martin J. A randomised controlled trial of feedback to improve patient satisfaction and consultation skills in medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(1):277. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02171-9
9. Audétat MC, Voirol C, Béland N, Fernandez N, Sanche G. Remediation plans in family medicine residency. Can Fam Physician. 2015;61(9):e425–34.
10. Roy M, Lockyer J, Touchie C. Family physician quality improvement plans: a realist inquiry into what works, for whom, under what circumstances. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2023;43(3):155-63. https://doi.org/10.1097/ceh.0000000000000454
11. Brutus S. Words versus numbers: a theoretical exploration of giving and receiving narrative comments in performance appraisal. Hum Resour Manag Rev. 2009;20(2):144–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.06.003
12. Al Ansari A, Agab AW, Al Sayed SD, Al Fudhala NJ. Multisource feedback tool for the assessment of medical student clerks in professionalism, communication, and collaboration skills. Med Sci Educ. 2016;26:609-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-016-0311
13. Sargeant J, Lockyer J, Mann K, et al. Facilitated reflective performance feedback: developing an evidence- and theory-based model that builds relationship, explores reactions and content, and coaches for performance change (R2C2). Acad Med. 2015;90(12):1698–706. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000000809
14. Norcini J, Anderson MB, Bollela V, et al. 2018 consensus framework for good assessment. Med Teach. 2018;40(11):1102-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1500016
15. Holmboe ES, Sherbino J, Long DM, Swing, SR, Frank JR. The role of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med Teach. 2010;32(8):676-82. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159x.2010.500704
16. Björklund K, Stenfors T, Nilsson GH, Leanderson C. Multisource feedback in medical students' workplace learning in primary health care. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):401. Published 2022 May 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03468-7
17. Ricci M, St-Onge C, Xiao J, Young M. Students as stakeholders in assessment: how students perceive the value of an assessment. Perspect Med Educ. 2018;7(6):352–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-018-0480-3
18. Boyer KK, Olson JR, Calantone RJ, Jackson EC. Print versus electronic surveys: a comparison of two data collection methodologies. J Oper Manag. 2002;20(4):357-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-6963(02)00004-9
19. Chakroun M, Dion VR, Ouellet K, et al. Narrative assessments in higher education: a scoping review to identify evidence-based quality indicators. Acad Med. 2022;97(11):1699-1706. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000004755
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Ilona Bartman, Christina St-Onge, Marguerite Roy, Andrea Gingerich, Eleni Katsoulas, Saad Chahine, Nathalie Gagnon
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Submission of an original manuscript to the Canadian Medical Education Journal will be taken to mean that it represents original work not previously published, that it is not being considered elsewhere for publication. If accepted for publication, it will be published online and it will not be published elsewhere in the same form, for commercial purposes, in any language, without the consent of the publisher.
Authors who publish in the Canadian Medical Education Journal agree to release their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 Canada Licence. This licence allows anyone to copy and distribute the article for non-commercial purposes provided that appropriate attribution is given. For details of the rights an author grants users of their work, please see the licence summary and the full licence.
