Evaluating postgraduate family medicine supervisor feedback in registrars’ learning portfolios

Background Postgraduate supervision forms a vital component of decentralised family medicine training. While the components of effective supervisory feedback have been explored in high-income countries, how this construct is delivered in resource-constrained low- to middle-income countries has not been investigated adequately. Aim This article evaluated supervisory feedback in family medicine registrars’ learning portfolios (LPs) as captured in their learning plans and mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (mini-CEX) forms and whether the training district or the year of training affected the nature of the feedback. Setting Registrars’ LPs from 2020 across five decentralised sites affiliated with the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa were analysed. Methods Two modified tools were used to evaluate the quantity of the written feedback in 38 learning plans and 57 mini-CEX forms. Descriptive statistics, Fisher’s exact and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used for analysis. Content analysis was used to derive counts of areas of feedback. Results Most learning plans (61.2%) did not refer to registrars’ clinical knowledge or offer an improvement strategy (86.1%). The ‘extent of supervisors’ feedback’ was rated as ‘poor’ (63.2%), with only 14.0% rated as ‘good.’ The ‘some’ and ‘no’ feedback categories in the mini-CEX competencies (p < 0.001 to p = 0.014) and the ‘extent of supervisors’ feedback’ (p < 0.001) were significantly associated with training district. Feedback focused less on clinical reasoning and negotiation skills. Conclusion Supervisors should provide specific and constructive narrative feedback and an action plan to improve registrars’ future performance. Contribution Supervisory feedback in postgraduate family medicine training needs overall improvement to develop skilled family physicians.