A qualitative design with a thematic analysis was used (18). Thematic analysis aims to identify, analyze and present patterns within a data set. The method identifies themes capturing central features of the research question. A unique theme is not dependent of how many times it occurs in a given data set and the process to identify and refine themes is quite circular following six steps: familiarity with the data, generalization of initial codes, searching to themes in the data, reviewing themes, defining and labelling themes and finally present the report.
Sample/participants: The survey was sent out to all residents in the residency program for licensed medical doctors in anaesthesia and intensive care (n=101) and all supervisors (n=168) in Stockholm during February - March 2018.
Setting
All five emergency public hospitals located in the metropolitan area of Stockholm; Sweden were included.
Data collection
A web-based surveys were created by B.D, one for residents and one for supervisors to collect data. 22 questions were sent to supervisors and 21 questions were sent to residents. Demographic variables and a variety of multiple-choice questions and open- ended questions covering the topic of feedback were collected. For this study the six open-ended questions were analysed.
The Web-based survey were sent by email to the residency program directors (PD) of each Hospital. The PDs further distributed a digital link through email to all supervisors and residents at their department.
Open-ended questions:
- What is feedback to you in your daily work/within the framework of the residency program?
- If you consider not receiving enough feedback, what might be the reasons for that? Please describe.
- Have you ever experienced negative effects of receiving or providing feedback? If yes, please describe.
- Have you ever experienced positive effects of receiving or providing feedback? If yes, please describe.
- Please give three suggestions on how you and/or your colleagues can get better at delivering feedback.
- Please give three suggestions on how you and/or your colleagues can get better at receiving and using feedback.
Data analysis
Generated data was automatically transferred to the Microsoft Excel program for further analysis.
Table I. Included respondents by demographic variables gender, age and experience.
|
Number of participants (n)
|
Number of respondents, n (%)
|
Female/Male
n
|
Age in years
|
residents
|
101
|
78 (77%)
|
44/33
|
30-51
|
supervisors
|
168
|
88 (52%)
|
42/45
|
33-70
|
Responses from the open ended questions (six questions to the residents and six questions to the supervisors) were analysed using thematic analysis (18).
Our data was coded separately by four coders (ST, BD, ACF, JN). Initially the four coders individually analysed the data. The responses to each open question in the survey were coded into different themes. The coders autonomously decided what themes they identified and how many themes they could find among the replies to each question. The coders then discussed the themes that had been found for each question and used sample questions to enlighten differences and similarities among the individually chosen themes. One coder (S.T.) then gathered a common coding system based on the themes from the previously mentioned discussion. All the data was then re-coded separately by the coders using the themes that had been established in the common coding system.
A new discussion took place where the coding of each response was analysed and differences in the coding were discussed. The discussion resulted in some themes being adjusted. In other cases where responses had been coded differently by different coders it was noted that the responses matched several themes. In such cases the different aspects of the response were discussed in depth.
One of the coders (S.T.) performed a deepened analysis of the different structures within the themes for each question. Similarities and discrepancies among the resident and supervisor group were noted. The analysis was further discussed in a video conference attended by all four coders which resulted in a common understanding of similarities and differences among the two groups.