Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Feedback Delivery in an Academic Cancer Centre: Reflections From an R2C2-based Microlearning Course

  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Feedback delivery and training have not been characterized in the context of academic cancer centres. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and utility of a microlearning course based on the R2C2 (Relationship, Reaction, Content, Coaching) feedback model and characterize multidisciplinary healthcare provider (HCP) perspectives on existing feedback practices in an academic cancer centre. Five HCP (two radiation oncologists, one medical oncologist, and two allied health professionals) with supervisory roles were selected by purposive sampling to participate in a prospective longitudinal qualitative study. Each participant completed a web-based multimedia course. Semi-structured one-on-one interviews were conducted with each participant at four time points: pre- and immediately post-course, and at one- and three-months post course. All participants found the course to be time feasible and completed it in 10–20 min. Participants expressed that the course fulfilled their need for feedback training and that its adoption may normalize a feedback culture in the cancer centre. Three themes were identified regarding perceptions of existing feedback practices: (1) hierarchical and interdisciplinary relationships modulate feedback delivery, (2) interest in feedback delivery varies by duration of the supervisory relationship, and (3) the transactionality of supervisor-trainee relationships influences feedback delivery. This study demonstrates the perceived feasibility and utility of a digital microlearning approach for development of feedback competencies in an academic cancer centre, perceptions of cultural barriers to feedback delivery, and the need for organizational commitment to developing a feedback culture.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Adapted from work by Sargeant et al. [4]

Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sender Liberman A, Liberman M, Steiner Y, McLeod P, Meterissian S (2005) Surgery residents and attending surgeons have different perceptions of feedback. Med Teach 27(5):470–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142590500129183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bing-You RG, Trowbridge RL (2009) Why medical educators may be failing at feedback. JAMA 302(12):1330–1331. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bing-You RG, Varaklis K, Hayes V, Trowbridge R, Kemp H, McKelvey D (2018) The feedback tango: an integrative review and analysis of the content of the teacher-learner feedback exchange. Acad Med 93(4):657–663. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001927

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sargeant J, Armson H, Driessen E, Holmboe E, Könings K, Lockyer J, Lynn L, Mann K, Ross K, Silver I, Soklaridis S, Warren A, Zetkulic M, Boudreau M, Shearer C (2016) Evidence-informed facilitated feedback: The R2C2 feedback model. MedEDPORTAL 12:10387. https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.10387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lockyer J, Armson H, Könings K, Lee-Krueger RCW, des Ordons AR, Ramani S, Trier J, Zetkulic M, Sargeant J (2020) In-the-moment feedback and coaching: improving R2C2 for a new context. J Grad Med Educ 12(1):27–35. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-19-00508.1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM (2006) The impact of E-learning in medical education. Acad Med 81(3):207–212. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200603000-00002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Axley L (2008) The integration of technology into nursing curricula: supporting faculty via the technology fellowship program. Online J Issues Nurs 13(3). https://doi.org/10.3912/OJIN.Vol13No03PPT01

  8. Skiba DJ, Connors HR, Jeffries PR (2008) Information technologies and the transformation of nursing education. Nurs Outlook 56(5):225–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2008.06.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kogan JR, Hatala R, Hauer KE, Holmboe E (2017) The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of direct observation of clinical skills in medical education. Perspect Med Educ 6(5):286–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-017-0376-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Calman L, Brunton L, Molassiotis A (2013) Developing longitudinal qualitative designs: lessons learned and recommendations for health services research. BMC Med Res Methodol 13:14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-14

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  12. Flick U (2018) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection. SAGE Publications, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Colonna S, Sweetenham J, Burgon TB, Buys SS, Lynch R, Au T, Johnson E, Kubal T, Paculdo D, Acelajado MC, Peabody JW (2019) A better pathway? Building consensus and engaging providers with feedback to improve and standardize cancer care. Clin Breast Cancer 19(2):e376–e384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2018.12.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tanvetyanon T, Lee J-H, Fulp WJ, Schreiber F, Brown RH, Levine RM, Cartwright TH, Abesada-Terk G Jr, Kim GP, Alemany C, Faig D, Sharp PV, Markham MJ, Malafa M, Jacobsen PB (2014) Changes in the care of non-small cell lung cancer after audit and feedback: The Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care. J Oncol Pract 10(4):e247–e254. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2013.001275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ramani S, Könings KV, Mann KD, Pisarski EE, van der Vleuten CPM (2018) About politeness, face, and feedback: exploring resident and faculty perceptions of how institutional feedback culture influences feedback practices. Acad Med 93(9):1348–1358. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Areemit RS, Cooper CM, Wirasorn K, Paopongsawan P, Panthongviriyakul C, Ramani S (2020) Hierarchy, “Kreng Jai” and feedback: a grounded theory study exploring perspectives of clinical faculty and medical students in Thailand. Teach Learn Med 1-10https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.20201.1813584

  17. Krugman RD, Jones MD Jr, Lowenstein SR (2014) Can we learn civility? Reflections on the challenge of changing culture. Acad Med 89(12):1586–1588. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000429

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ramani S, Post SE, Könings K, Mann K, Katz JT, van der Vleuten C (2017) “It’s just not the culture”: A qualitative study exploring residents’ perceptions of the impact of institutional culture on feedback. Teach Learn Med 29(2):153–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2016.1244014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kirkpatrick JD, Kirkpatrick WK (2016) Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation. Association for Talent Development Press, Alexandria

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by the CBME Residency Education Implementation Award (Postgraduate Medical Education, University of Toronto).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5T 1P5, Canada

    Amir H. Safavi, Jennifer Croke, Barbara-Ann Millar, Andrea Bezjak & Meredith E. Giuliani

  2. Cancer Education, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, 585 University Ave, Munk Building B-PMB 130, Toronto, ON, M5G 2M9, Canada

    Janet Papadakos, Tina Papadakos, Naa Kwarley Quartey, Karen Lawrie, Eden Klein, Sarah Storer & Meredith E. Giuliani

  3. Patient Education, Ontario Health, Toronto, ON, M5S 1A1, Canada

    Janet Papadakos & Tina Papadakos

  4. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College St 4th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M6, Canada

    Janet Papadakos

  5. Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, 700 University Ave 7th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5G 2M9, Canada

    Jennifer Croke, Barbara-Ann Millar, Andrea Bezjak & Meredith E. Giuliani

  6. Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, University of Toronto, 700 University Ave 7th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5G 2M9, Canada

    Raymond Jang

Authors
  1. Amir H. Safavi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Janet Papadakos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tina Papadakos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Naa Kwarley Quartey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Karen Lawrie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Eden Klein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sarah Storer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jennifer Croke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Barbara-Ann Millar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Raymond Jang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Andrea Bezjak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Meredith E. Giuliani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Amir H. Safavi, Janet Papadakos, Tina Papadakos, Karen Lawrie, and Meredith E. Giuliani. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Amir H. Safavi and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meredith E. Giuliani.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval, consent to participate, and consent for publication

This protocol was reviewed by the Institutional Research Ethics Board and ethics approval was obtained (UHN REB #19–5981). Informed consent for participation and publication was obtained from all participants.

Conflict of interest

MG has received funding from Bristol-Myers Sqiubb, AstraZeneca, and Eli Lilly. AHS, JP, TP, NKQ, KL, EK, SS, JC, BAM, RJ, and AB declare no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 1865 KB)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 29 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Safavi, A.H., Papadakos, J., Papadakos, T. et al. Feedback Delivery in an Academic Cancer Centre: Reflections From an R2C2-based Microlearning Course. J Canc Educ 37, 1790–1797 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-021-02028-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-021-02028-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation