TY - JOUR
T1 - Examining the Impact of Using the SIMPL Application on Feedback in Surgical Education
AU - Gunderson, Kirsten
AU - Sullivan, Sarah
AU - Warner-Hillard, Charles
AU - Thompson, Ryan
AU - Greenberg, Jacob A.
AU - Foley, Eugene F.
AU - Jung, Hee Soo
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding: This work was funded by the University of Wisconsin, School of Medicine and Public Health and conclusions do not reflect the views of the funding agencies, cooperating institutions, or other individuals.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 Association of Program Directors in Surgery
PY - 2018/11
Y1 - 2018/11
N2 - Objective: The System for Improving and Measuring Procedural Learning (SIMPL) smartphone application allows physicians to provide dictated feedback to surgical residents. The impact of this novel feedback medium on the quality of feedback is unknown. Our objective was to compare the delivery and quality of best-case operative performance feedback given via SIMPL to feedback given in-person. Design: We collected operative performance feedback given both in-person and via SIMPL from surgeons to residents over 6 weeks. Feedback transcripts were coded using Verbal Response Modes speech acts taxonomy to compare the delivery of feedback. We evaluated quality of feedback using a validated resident survey and third-party assessment form. Setting: University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, a large academic medical institution. Participants: Four surgical attendings and 9 general surgery residents. Results: Nineteen SIMPL and 18 in-person feedback encounters were evaluated. Feedback via SIMPL was more directive (containing thoughts, perceptions, evaluations of resident behavior, or advice) and contained more presumptuous utterances (in which the physician reflected on and assessed resident performance or offered suggestions for improvement) than in-person feedback (p = 0.01). The resident survey showed no significant difference between the quality of feedback given via SIMPL and in-person (p = 0.07). The mean score was 47.74 (SD = 3.00) for SIMPL feedback and 45.33 (SD = 4.77) for in-person feedback, with a total possible score of 50. Third-party assessment showed no significant difference between the quality of feedback given via SIMPL and in-person (p = 0.486). The mean score was 23.40 (SD = 3.75) for SIMPL feedback and 22.25 (SD = 5.94) for in-person feedback, with a total possible score of 30. Conclusions: Although feedback given via SIMPL was more direct and based on the attendings’ perspectives, the quality of the feedback did not differ significantly. Use of the dictation feature of SIMPL to deliver resident operative performance feedback is a reasonable alternative to in-person feedback.
AB - Objective: The System for Improving and Measuring Procedural Learning (SIMPL) smartphone application allows physicians to provide dictated feedback to surgical residents. The impact of this novel feedback medium on the quality of feedback is unknown. Our objective was to compare the delivery and quality of best-case operative performance feedback given via SIMPL to feedback given in-person. Design: We collected operative performance feedback given both in-person and via SIMPL from surgeons to residents over 6 weeks. Feedback transcripts were coded using Verbal Response Modes speech acts taxonomy to compare the delivery of feedback. We evaluated quality of feedback using a validated resident survey and third-party assessment form. Setting: University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, a large academic medical institution. Participants: Four surgical attendings and 9 general surgery residents. Results: Nineteen SIMPL and 18 in-person feedback encounters were evaluated. Feedback via SIMPL was more directive (containing thoughts, perceptions, evaluations of resident behavior, or advice) and contained more presumptuous utterances (in which the physician reflected on and assessed resident performance or offered suggestions for improvement) than in-person feedback (p = 0.01). The resident survey showed no significant difference between the quality of feedback given via SIMPL and in-person (p = 0.07). The mean score was 47.74 (SD = 3.00) for SIMPL feedback and 45.33 (SD = 4.77) for in-person feedback, with a total possible score of 50. Third-party assessment showed no significant difference between the quality of feedback given via SIMPL and in-person (p = 0.486). The mean score was 23.40 (SD = 3.75) for SIMPL feedback and 22.25 (SD = 5.94) for in-person feedback, with a total possible score of 30. Conclusions: Although feedback given via SIMPL was more direct and based on the attendings’ perspectives, the quality of the feedback did not differ significantly. Use of the dictation feature of SIMPL to deliver resident operative performance feedback is a reasonable alternative to in-person feedback.
KW - COMPETENCIES: Practiced-Based Learning and Improvement
KW - Feedback
KW - Graduate medical education
KW - Speech act theory
KW - Surgical education
KW - Verbal response modes
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85052992465&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85052992465&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.08.009
DO - 10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.08.009
M3 - Article
C2 - 30213738
AN - SCOPUS:85052992465
SN - 1931-7204
VL - 75
SP - e246-e254
JO - Journal of Surgical Education
JF - Journal of Surgical Education
IS - 6
ER -