Article Text

Download PDFPDF
UK palliative medicine trainees and multisource communication skills feedback: an educational tool?
  1. Katherine Webber1 and
  2. Rebecca Selman2
  1. 1 Department of Supportive and Palliative Care, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, Surrey, UK
  2. 2 Department of Postgraduate Education, Royal College of Physicians of London, London, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Katherine Webber, Department of Supportive and Palliative Care, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford GU2 7XX, UK; kwebber1{at}


Background Multisource feedback provides ratings of a trainee doctor’s performance from a range of assessors and enables 360 degree feedback on communication skills and team working behaviours. It is a tool used throughout palliative medicine training in the UK. There are limited data on the value of multisource feedback from a palliative medicine trainee perspective.

Aim To study the views of palliative medicine trainees regarding multisource feedback as an educational tool to develop communication skills.

Design A multimodal study encompassing a focus group and questionnaire mailed to all deanery palliative doctors.

Setting/participants All palliative medicine trainees within a UK training deanery.

Results Over half of responding trainees thought multisource feedback had little or no impact on their clinical practice. Improvements in delivery of multisource feedback to maximise learning were identified, including skilled feedback and facilitation by educational supervisors.

Conclusions Despite multisource feedback currently having limited benefits, a number of recommendations are suggested to improve this.

  • communication
  • service evaluation
  • supportive care

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Contributors The lead author primarily conducted the study and wrote manuscript. The second author was the chief investigator and educational supervisor. She provided support, guidance and edited the manuscript.

  • Funding The study was sponsored by University College London and did not receive any additional funding.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Author note This project contributed towards a postgraduate diploma in medical education at University College London.