OBJECTIVES: Audit feedback is conventionally given in the format of an average performance of the department relative to established guidelines. The impersonality of this feedback format may compromise audit outcome. The aim of the study was to compare personal, peer-comparison feedback, an effective method of changing physician practice, to the 'conventional' departmental one. METHODS: Eleven SHOs working at a central London A&E department were audited in terms of the adequacy of their documentation process. The study comprised patients presenting with closed head injury, acute asthma and chest pain of possible cardiac origin. Personal peer-comparison feedback and average departmental feedback was given for the first two groups, respectively. No feedback was given for the chest pain group, acting as a temporal control. The outcome measure was documentation of the minimum variables, as specified by departmental guidelines. RESULTS: The peer-comparison feedback group showed a significant improvement (p-value<0.0001) in two out of three target variables audited, in contrast to the departmental feedback group and the control group which did not show a significant improvement in any of the variables. CONCLUSIONS: Personal, confidential peer-comparison feedback was more effective than departmental feedback, in an audit of process of junior doctors. This pilot study should form the basis of a larger study (more SHOs, wider range of conditions) to establish unequivocally the best format for educational feedback.
OBJECTIVES: Audit feedback is conventionally given in the format of an average performance of the department relative to established guidelines. The impersonality of this feedback format may compromise audit outcome. The aim of the study was to compare personal, peer-comparison feedback, an effective method of changing physician practice, to the 'conventional' departmental one. METHODS: Eleven SHOs working at a central London A&E department were audited in terms of the adequacy of their documentation process. The study comprised patients presenting with closed head injury, acute asthma and chest pain of possible cardiac origin. Personal peer-comparison feedback and average departmental feedback was given for the first two groups, respectively. No feedback was given for the chest pain group, acting as a temporal control. The outcome measure was documentation of the minimum variables, as specified by departmental guidelines. RESULTS: The peer-comparison feedback group showed a significant improvement (p-value<0.0001) in two out of three target variables audited, in contrast to the departmental feedback group and the control group which did not show a significant improvement in any of the variables. CONCLUSIONS: Personal, confidential peer-comparison feedback was more effective than departmental feedback, in an audit of process of junior doctors. This pilot study should form the basis of a larger study (more SHOs, wider range of conditions) to establish unequivocally the best format for educational feedback.
Authors: Alexander G Fiks; Peixin Zhang; A Russell Localio; Saira Khan; Robert W Grundmeier; Dean J Karavite; Charles Bailey; Evaline A Alessandrini; Christopher B Forrest Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2014-10-06 Impact factor: 3.402