TY - JOUR
T1 - A comparison between different formats of educational feedback to junior doctors
T2 - A prospective pilot intervention study
AU - Hadjianastassiou, V. G.
AU - Karadaglis, D.
AU - Gavalas, M.
PY - 2001
Y1 - 2001
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Continuing medical education
KW - Education
KW - Emergency service
KW - Medical audit
KW - Practice guidelines
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035215253&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
C2 - 11768577
AN - SCOPUS:0035215253
SN - 0035-8835
VL - 46
SP - 354
EP - 357
JO - Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh
JF - Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh
IS - 6
ER -