Duke University Schools of Medicine and Nursing developed an interprofessional student clinical experience which brings together students and faculty from their professional programs including doctor of allopathy (MD), advanced bachelors of science in nursing (ABSN), nurse practitioner (NP), physician assistant (PA), physical therapy (PT) to provide collaborative care to patients presenting to the Duke emergency department (ED). The interprofessional experience focuses on team-based, hands-on patient care as well as learning from and with each of the professions. A clinical faculty member is responsible for the patient’s medical care while also providing reinforcing and constructive feedback to the students at the end of the clinical session. At the start of the academic year, faculty are provided with suggested readings that offer guidance and tips for feedback as well as maintaining a safe learning environment for growth. During the most recent academic year (2024-2025), 317 interprofessional students completed a Qualtrics survey regarding their experience and responded to the question, “Did your faculty member provide you/your team with constructive feedback?” The students reported that 75% of the time (n=238) that the faculty provided exceptional feedback (defined as clear, specific, and actionable, focusing on both strengths and areas for improvement for most or all team members) and 18% (n=57) of the time feedback exceeding expectations (mostly clear, specific, and actionable for most of the team members). The remaining 7% of responses included: meets expectations (n=14) (defined as feedback was mostly clear, specific, and actionable with focus on strengths and areas for improvement for at least one team member), needs development (n=1) (defined as feedback was unclear, lacked specificity, or was not entirely actionable), and well below expectations (n=7) (defined as unclear, vague or not constructive, with little to no actionable advice). The subpar responses were distributed amongst 12 of the 23 participating faculty members, none of whom consistently received low ratings. In fact, all of these faculty also received ratings categorized as exceptional. This suggests that the lower ratings were isolated instances, each likely tied to a single student’s experience during a specific clinical session. As a result, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about which faculty might require additional development. Future evaluations should consider reducing the number of Likert scale options to improve clarity, as distinctions between response categories are currently difficult to interpret. Additionally, identifying the students' professional programs could provide valuable insight into differences in feedback perception.
