Assessment and feedback in emergency medicine training: Views of Australasian emergency trainees

Abstract

The aim of the present study is to describe ACEM trainees' perspectives on assessment and feedback during their training. From May to July 2009, an anonymous Web-based survey on training and supervision in emergency medicine was conducted, addressing trainees' perceptions of mandatory assessments (primary examination, fellowship examination and mandatory trainee research requirement) and feedback at work. Qualitative data were analysed using grounded theory methodology--themes were identified by close examination of full text responses. In total, 622 trainees responded to the survey (response rate of 37%). Trainees report that general clinical supervision is adequate; however, direct supervision at the bedside and feedback could be significantly improved. They perceive that the primary examination is necessary, although they feel it is irrelevant to their development as emergency trainees and are keen for more clinically applied knowledge to be tested. They dislike mandatory trainee research, feel inadequately supported and distracted from other aspects of their training. The fellowship examination was overall thought to be fair; however, there were concerns with the time pressures and restrictions to the written component of the examination. Additionally, the structured clinical examination was popular, whereas short cases and long cases were very unpopular. ACEM trainees' views of training may help inform curriculum development, and might assist those providing education to improve local training programs.