You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letters
Feedback after Supervised Learning Events (SLEs)
  1. R Seethamraju1,
  2. N J Shaw2
  1. 1 Neonatal Unit, Royal Bolton Hospital, Bolton, UK
  2. 2 Neonatal Unit, Liverpool Women's Hospital, Liverpool, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr R Seethamraju, Neonatal Unit, Royal Bolton Hospital, Minerva Road, Farnworth, Bolton BL4 0JR, UK; rajasrirao{at}gmail.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2014-307467

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health have introduced Supervised Learning Events (SLEs) in 2013; formative assessments (in the form of Case Based Discussions and Mini Clinical Exercises) which should aid in providing feedback to trainees on their performance. We aimed to assess the feedback trainees have received in relation to their SLEs. We devised a pro forma with questions adapted from the feedback literature1–4 addressing the major elements of effective feedback. Each question consists of a statement and the pro forma is completed by the respondent indicating on a visual analogue scale how much they agree with the statement. Trainees at Liverpool Women's Hospital from …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors NJS was responsible for the conception and design of the study and obtaining ethical approval. RS was responsible for the acquisition of the data. RS and NJS were responsible for the analysis and interpretation of the data, drafting and revision of the work up to the submitted version and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Ethics approval Health Education North West Research Committee.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.