Evolving Perceptions of Feedback in Medical Communication Training

TL;DR

This study explores how first-year medical students' preferences for feedback change during simulated patient consultations over time.

Contribution

The study proposes a preliminary framework for how feedback preferences evolve as students gain experience.

Findings

Students initially valued simulated patient feedback most for its direct relevance to patient interaction.

Later, they increasingly appreciated observer feedback, peer video annotations, and group discussions.

By the final session, group discussions were seen as most valuable for collaborative reflection and learning.

Abstract

This exploratory study investigates how first-year international medical students’ perceptions of feedback may evolve during simulated patient consultations (SPCs). Over an 8-month period, 10 students participated in 4 SPCs and completed structured surveys after each session, ranking the value of 4 feedback sources: simulated patient feedback, observer feedback, video-annotated peer feedback, and group discussion sessions. Surveys combined Likert-scale ratings with open-ended questions to capture both quantitative and qualitative insights. The findings suggest a possible preliminary framework for feedback preferences. Early in the course, students most highly valued simulated patient feedback for its direct relevance to patient interaction. As the SPCs progressed, appreciation for observer feedback, video-annotated peer feedback, and group discussions increased. By the final SPC, group discussion sessions were frequently regarded as the most valuable, as they provided opportunities for collaborative reflection and shared learning. These preliminary observations point toward a framework in which learners’ feedback needs may shift from immediate, patient-centered input to more reflective and collaborative forms as they gain experience. The study highlights the potential importance of tailoring feedback strategies to students’ developmental stages. Given the small sample size and single-institution context, the results should be interpreted cautiously and considered hypothesis-generating. Future research with larger, multi-institutional samples is needed to test and refine this framework.

Figures