BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses demonstrate audit with feedback (AWF) is effective continuing medical education (CME). However, efficacy varies between specialties, with little published radiation oncologist (RO)-specific evidence. We evaluated an AWF CME intervention for ROs determining efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and participant satisfaction. METHODS: CME program: The CME incorporated fortnightly random patient chart audit, scoring management adequacy via a checklist. Scores were presented at a same-day institutional meeting, and case management discussed. Senior peers provided individualized, educational feedback. EVALUATION: Changes in behavior and performance were evaluated by chart review of new patients seen by ROs in the 2 months before commencement of AWF (T0), and at months 13-14 of the program (T1). Behavior and performance were evaluated with a validated, reproducible, 19-item instrument. Criteria for each case audited included 10 targeted and 3 nontargeted behavior items and 6 performance items; each scored 1 point if deemed adequate (maximum score 19). Cost-effectiveness was reported as cost to the institution per item point gained. The mean score (out of 5) of a 14-item questionnaire evaluated program perception. RESULTS: A total of 113 and 118 charts were evaluated at T0 and T1, respectively. Mean score of targeted behavior improved between T0 and T1 (from 8.7 to 9.2 out of 10, P = .0001), with no significant improvement of nontargeted behavior/performance items. Annual costs and cost-per-point gained were US 7,897 dollars and 15 dollars. Participant satisfaction was positive, increasing after efficacy result distribution (P = .0001). CONCLUSION: Audit with comparative, individualized, educational feedback is cost-effective and positively perceived CME, significantly improving targeted RO behavior. Oncologists' CME design and evaluation require further research.
BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses demonstrate audit with feedback (AWF) is effective continuing medical education (CME). However, efficacy varies between specialties, with little published radiation oncologist (RO)-specific evidence. We evaluated an AWF CME intervention for ROs determining efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and participant satisfaction. METHODS: CME program: The CME incorporated fortnightly random patient chart audit, scoring management adequacy via a checklist. Scores were presented at a same-day institutional meeting, and case management discussed. Senior peers provided individualized, educational feedback. EVALUATION: Changes in behavior and performance were evaluated by chart review of new patients seen by ROs in the 2 months before commencement of AWF (T0), and at months 13-14 of the program (T1). Behavior and performance were evaluated with a validated, reproducible, 19-item instrument. Criteria for each case audited included 10 targeted and 3 nontargeted behavior items and 6 performance items; each scored 1 point if deemed adequate (maximum score 19). Cost-effectiveness was reported as cost to the institution per item point gained. The mean score (out of 5) of a 14-item questionnaire evaluated program perception. RESULTS: A total of 113 and 118 charts were evaluated at T0 and T1, respectively. Mean score of targeted behavior improved between T0 and T1 (from 8.7 to 9.2 out of 10, P = .0001), with no significant improvement of nontargeted behavior/performance items. Annual costs and cost-per-point gained were US 7,897 dollars and 15 dollars. Participant satisfaction was positive, increasing after efficacy result distribution (P = .0001). CONCLUSION: Audit with comparative, individualized, educational feedback is cost-effective and positively perceived CME, significantly improving targeted RO behavior. Oncologists' CME design and evaluation require further research.
Authors: Michael Brundage; Sophie Foxcroft; Tom McGowan; Eric Gutierrez; Michael Sharpe; Padraig Warde Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-07-31 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Lawrence B Marks; Robert D Adams; Todd Pawlicki; Albert L Blumberg; David Hoopes; Michael D Brundage; Benedick A Fraass Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-03-16