Improving residency training with the help of multisource feedback: Generation of a model of influencing factors

Background: Feedback is considered to be one of the most important drivers of learning. One form of structured feedback used in medical settings is multisource feedback (MSF). This feedback technique provides the opportunity to gain a differentiated view on a doctor’s performance from several perspectives using a questionnaire and a facilitating conversation, in which learning goals are formulated. While many studies have been conducted on the validity, reliability and feasibility of the instrument, little is known about the impact of factors that might influence the effects of MSF on clinical performance. Summary of Work: To study under which circumstances MSF is most effective, we performed a literature review on Google Scholar with focus on MSF and feedback in general. Main key-words were: MSF, multi-source-feedback, multi source feedback, and feedback each combined with influencing/ hindering/ facilitating factors, effective, effectiveness, doctors-intraining, and surgery. Summary of Results: Based on the literature, we developed a preliminary model of facilitating factors. This model includes five main factors influencing MSF: questionnaire, doctor-in-training, group of raters, facilitating supervisor, and facilitating conversation. Discussion and Conclusions: Especially the following points that might influence MSF have not yet been sufficiently studied: facilitating conversation with the supervisor, individual aspects of doctors-in-training, and the causal relations between influencing factors. Overall there are only very few studies focusing on the impact of MSF on actual and long-term performance. We developed a preliminary model of hindering and facilitating factors on MSF. Further studies are needed to better understand under which circumstances MSF is most effective. Take-home messages: The preliminary model might help to guide further studies on how to implement MSF to use it at its full potential.

An Exploration Based Cognitive Bias Test for Mice: Effects of Handling Method and Stereotypic Behaviour

Behavioural tests to assess affective states are widely used in human research and have recently been extended to animals. These tests assume that affective state influences cognitive processing, and that animals in a negative affective state interpret ambiguous information as expecting a negative outcome (displaying a negative cognitive bias). Most of these tests however, require long discrimination training. The aim of the study was to validate an exploration based cognitive bias test, using two different handling methods, as previous studies have shown that standard tail handling of mice increases physiological and behavioural measures of anxiety compared to cupped handling. Therefore, we hypothesised that tail handled mice would display a negative cognitive bias. We handled 28 female CD-1 mice for 16 weeks using either tail handling or cupped handling. The mice were then trained in an eight arm radial maze, where two adjacent arms predicted a positive outcome (darkness and food), while the two opposite arms predicted a negative outcome (no food, white noise and light). After six days of training, the mice were also given access to the four previously unavailable intermediate ambiguous arms of the radial maze and tested for cognitive bias. We were unable to validate this test, as mice from both handling groups displayed a similar pattern of exploration. Furthermore, we examined whether maze exploration is affected by the expression of stereotypic behaviour in the home cage. Mice with higher levels of stereotypic behaviour spent more time in positive arms and avoided ambiguous arms, displaying a negative cognitive bias. While this test needs further validation, our results indicate that it may allow the assessment of affective state in mice with minimal training— a major confound in current cognitive bias paradigms.