Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Verbal Feedback in Surgical Education

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advancing Surgical Education

Part of the book series: Innovation and Change in Professional Education ((ICPE,volume 17))

Overview

This chapter synthesises findings from observational studies of feedback in surgical education and the broader health workplace which illuminate the failure of feedback to do its job in improving trainee performance. Given this state of affairs, we argue for an alternative way of looking at feedback practices in surgical education. The recent frameworks proposed by Boud and Molloy (Assess Eval Higher Educ 38:698–712, 2013), Feedback Mark 1 and Mark 2, reconceptualise feedback as an activity driven by learners rather than an act of ‘telling’ imposed on learners. Through identifying their own needs, concerns and practice goals, learners are more likely to take on board the strategies raised for improvement. This dialogic form of feedback is more likely to develop self-regulatory capacities in the learner, but this requires displays of vulnerability and establishment of trust between parties. We argue that these dialogic communication strategies, centred around respect, trust and development of ‘the other’ in terms of reaching their goals, may transfer to surgeons’ skills in patient-centred care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Boud, D., & Molloy, E. K. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Molloy, E., Borello, F., & Epstein, R. (2013). The impact of emotion in feedback. In D. Boud & E. Molloy (Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education (pp. 50–72). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Watling, C., Driessen, E., van der Vleuten, C. P., & Lingard, L. (2012). Learning from clinical work: The roles of learning cues and credibility judgements. Medical Education, 46(2), 192–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Telio, S., Ajjawi, R., & Regehr, G. (2015). The “educational alliance” as a framework for reconceptualizing feedback in medical education. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 90(5), 609–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Nestel, D., Bello, F., & Kneebone, R. (2013). Feedback in clinical procedural skills simulations. In D. Boud & E. Molloy (Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education (pp. 140–157). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Molloy, E. (2009). Time to pause: Feedback in clinical education. In C. Delany & E. Molloy (Eds.), Clinical education in the health professions (pp. 128–146). Sydney: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Sender Liberman, A., Liberman, M., Steinert, Y., McLeod, P., & Meterissian, S. (2005). Surgery residents and attending surgeons have different perceptions of feedback. Medical Teacher, 27(5), 470–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Archer, J. C. (2010). State of the science in health professional education: Effective feedback. Medical Education, 44(1), 101–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Molloy, E., & Boud, D. (2013). Changing conceptions of feedback. In D. Boud & E. Molloy (Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education (pp. 11–33). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Arora, S., Hull, L., Sevdalis, N., Tierney, T., Nestel, D., Woloshynowych, M., et al. (2010). Factors compromising safety in surgery: Stressful events in the operating room. American Journal of Surgery, 199(1), 60–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sargeant, J., Armson, H., Chesluk, B., Dornan, T., Eva, K., Holmboe, E., et al. (2010). The processes and dimensions of informed self-assessment: A conceptual model. Academic Medicine, 85(7), 1212–1220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Eva, K. W., & Regehr, G. (2005). Self-assessment in the health professions: A reformulation and research agenda. Academic Medicine, 80(10), S46–S54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tully, J., Dameff, C., Kaib, S., & Moffitt, M. (2015). Recording medical students’ encounters with standardized patients using Google glass: Providing end-of-life clinical education. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges., 90(3), 314–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Telio, S., Regehr, G., & Ajjawi, R. (2016). Feedback and the educational alliance: Examining credibility judgements and their consequences. Medical Education, 50(9), 933–942.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Arora, S., Sevdalis, N., Nestel, D., Woloshynowych, M., Darzi, A., & Kneebone, R. (2010). The impact of stress on surgical performance: A systematic review of the literature. Surgery, 147(3), 318–330 30 e1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Campbell, D. A. J., Sonnad, S. S., Eckhauser, F. E., Campbell, K. K., & Greenfield, L. J. (2001). Burnout among American surgeons. Surgery, 130, 695–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Boud, D., & Molloy, E. K. (Eds.). (2013). Feedback in higher and professional education. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ong, C. C., Dodds, A., & Nestel, D. (2016). Beliefs and values about intra-operative teaching and learning: A case study of surgical teachers and trainees. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 21(3), 587–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Castanelli, D. J., Jowsey, T., Chen, Y., & Weller, J. M. (2016). Perceptions of purpose, value, and process of the mini-clinical evaluation exercise in anesthesia training. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal Canadien D’anesthésie, 63(12), 1345–1356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Molloy, E., & Boud, D. (2013). Seeking a different angle on feedback in clinical education: The learner as seeker, judge and user of performance information. Medical Education, 47(3), 227–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ahmed, M., Arora, S., Russ, S., Darzi, A., Vincent, C., & Sevdalis, N. (2013). Operation debrief: A SHARP improvement in performance feedback in the operating room. Annals of Surgery, 258(6), 958–963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Major, A. (2014). To bully and be bullied: Harassment and mistreatment in medical education. The Virtual Mentor: VM, 16(3), 155–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Expert Advisory Group. Advising the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons on discrimination, bullying and sexual harassment 2015. Available from: https://www.surgeons.org/media/22045685/EAG-Report-to-RACS-Draft-08-Sept-2015.pdf.

  25. Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. Building respect, improving patient safety 2015. Available from: https://www.surgeons.org/media/22260415/RACS-Action-Plan_Bullying-Harassment_F-Low-Res_FINAL.pdf.

  26. Johnson, C. E., Keating, J. L., Boud, D. J., Dalton, M., Kiegaldie, D., Hay, M., et al. (2016). Identifying educator behaviours for high quality verbal feedback in health professions education: Literature review and expert refinement. BMC Medical Education, 16(1), 96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tai, J., Canny, B., Haines, T., & Molloy, E. (2015). Building evaluative judgement through peer-assisted learning: Opportunities in clinical medical education. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 21, 659–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sommer, J., Lanier, C., Perron, N. J., Nendaz, M., Clavet, D., & Audétat, M.-C. (2016). A teaching skills assessment tool inspired by the Calgary–Cambridge model and the patient-centered approach. Patient Education and Counseling, 99(4), 600–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mead, N., & Bower, P. (2000). Patient-centredness: A conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature. Social Science & Medicine, 51(7), 1087–1110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Jensen, A. R., Wright, A. S., Kim, S., Horvath, K. D., & Calhoun, K. E. (2012). Educational feedback in the operating room: A gap between resident and faculty perceptions. American Journal of Surgery, 204(2), 248–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Shay, L. A., & Lafata, J. E. (2014). Understanding patient perceptions of shared decision making. Patient Education and Counseling, 96(3), 295–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ross, S., Dudek, N., Halman, S., & Humphrey-Murto, S. (2016). Context, time, and building relationships: Bringing in situ feedback into the conversation. Medical Education, 50(9), 893–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Pugh, D., & Hatala, R. (2016). Being a good supervisor: it’s all about the relationship. Medical Education, 50(4), 395–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wearne, S. (2016). Effective feedback and the educational alliance. Medical Education, 50(9), 891–892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia

    Elizabeth Molloy & Charlotte Denniston

  2. Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

    Charlotte Denniston

Authors
  1. Elizabeth Molloy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charlotte Denniston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth Molloy .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine, Nursing & Health Sciences, Monash Institute for Health and Clinical Education, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia, Faculty of Medicine Dentistry & Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia

    Debra Nestel

  2. Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Kirsten Dalrymple

  3. Department of Surgery, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA

    John T. Paige

  4. Department of Surgery, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA, Jefferson Strategic Ventures, Jefferson Health, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Rajesh Aggarwal

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Molloy, E., Denniston, C. (2019). The Role of Verbal Feedback in Surgical Education. In: Nestel, D., Dalrymple, K., Paige, J., Aggarwal, R. (eds) Advancing Surgical Education. Innovation and Change in Professional Education, vol 17. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3128-2_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3128-2_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-3127-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-3128-2

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation