Keiko Asao1, Ishak A Mansi, Daniel Banks. 1. Department of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, Louisiana 71130, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study examined the effectiveness of a quality improvement project of a limited didactic session, a medical record audit by peers, and casual feedback within a residency program. METHOD: Residents audited their peers' medical records from the clinic of a university hospital in March, April, August, and September 2007. A 24-item quality-of-care score was developed for five common diagnoses, expressed from 0 to 100, with 100 as complete compliance. Audit scores were compared by month and experience of the resident as an auditor. RESULTS: A total of 469 medical records, audited by 12 residents, for 80 clinic residents, were included. The mean quality-of-care score was 89 (95% CI = 88-91); the scores in March, April, August, and September were 88 (95% CI = 85-91), 94 (95% CI = 90-96), 87 (95% CI = 85-89), and 91 (95% CI = 89-93), respectively. The mean score of 58 records of residents who had experience as auditors was 94 (95% CI = 89-96) compared with 89 (95% CI = 87-90) for those who did not. The score significantly varied (P = .0009) from March to April and from April to August, but it was not significantly associated with experience as an auditor with multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Residents' compliance with the standards of care was generally high. Residents responded to the project well, but their performance dropped after a break in the intervention. Continuation of the audit process may be necessary for a sustained effect on quality.
PURPOSE: This study examined the effectiveness of a quality improvement project of a limited didactic session, a medical record audit by peers, and casual feedback within a residency program. METHOD: Residents audited their peers' medical records from the clinic of a university hospital in March, April, August, and September 2007. A 24-item quality-of-care score was developed for five common diagnoses, expressed from 0 to 100, with 100 as complete compliance. Audit scores were compared by month and experience of the resident as an auditor. RESULTS: A total of 469 medical records, audited by 12 residents, for 80 clinic residents, were included. The mean quality-of-care score was 89 (95% CI = 88-91); the scores in March, April, August, and September were 88 (95% CI = 85-91), 94 (95% CI = 90-96), 87 (95% CI = 85-89), and 91 (95% CI = 89-93), respectively. The mean score of 58 records of residents who had experience as auditors was 94 (95% CI = 89-96) compared with 89 (95% CI = 87-90) for those who did not. The score significantly varied (P = .0009) from March to April and from April to August, but it was not significantly associated with experience as an auditor with multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Residents' compliance with the standards of care was generally high. Residents responded to the project well, but their performance dropped after a break in the intervention. Continuation of the audit process may be necessary for a sustained effect on quality.
Authors: Colleen Y Colbert; John D Myers; Christian T Cable; Paul E Ogden; Curtis Mirkes; Tresa McNeal; Shawn Skeen Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2012-06
Authors: Catherine P Kaminetzky; Lauren A Beste; Anne P Poppe; Daniel B Doan; Howard K Mun; Nancy Fugate Woods; Joyce E Wipf Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2017-12-22 Impact factor: 2.463