Third year medical students impersonalize and hedge when providing negative upward feedback to clinical faculty

Medical students provide clinical teaching faculty with feedback on their skills as educators through anonymous surveys at the end of their clerkship rotation. Because faculty are in a position of power, students are hesitant to provide candid feedback. Our objective was to determine if medical students were willing to provide negative upward feedback to clinical faculty and describe how they conveyed their feedback. A qualitative analysis of third year medical students' open-ended comments from evaluations of six clerkships was performed using politeness theory as a conceptual framework. Students were asked to describe how the clerkship enhanced their learning and how it could be improved. Midway through the academic year, instructions to provide full names of faculty/residents was added. Overall, there were significantly more comments on what worked well than suggestions for improvement regarding faculty/residents. Instructing students to name-names increased the rate of naming from 35% to 75% for what worked well and from 13% to 39% for suggestions for improvement. Hedging language was included in 61% of suggestions for improvement, but only 2% of what worked well. Students described the variability of their experience, used passive language and qualified negative experiences with positive ones. Medical students may use linguistic strategies, such as impersonalizing and hedging, to mitigate the impact of negative upward feedback. Working towards a culture that supports upward feedback would allow students to feel more comfortable providing candid comments about their experience.

Automated summary

Medical students tend to focus more on positive aspects when providing feedback to clinical faculty, while using hedging language for suggestions. Asking students to name-names midway through the academic year increased the specificity of feedback, indicating a willingness to provide more direct feedback.