ArticleQuality & safety in health care2007
Development and testing of an assessment instrument for the formative peer review of significant event analyses.
Article in Quality & safety in health care, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding diagnosis of lung cancer in primary care: qualitative synthesis of significant event audit reports.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2013Article
- Barriers and attitudes influencing non-engagement in a peer feedback model to inform evidence for GP appraisal.BMC medical education · 2012Article
- A review of significant events analysed in general practice: implications for the quality and safety of patient care.BMC family practice · 2009Article
- Verifying appraisal evidence using feedback from trained peers: views and experiences of Scottish GP appraisers.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo establish the content validity and specific aspects of reliability for an assessment instrument designed to provide formative feedback to general practitioners (GPs) on the quality of their written analysis of a significant event.
methodsContent validity was quantified by application of a content validity index. Reliability testing involved a nested design, with 5 cells, each containing 4 assessors, rating 20 unique significant event analysis (SEA) reports (10 each from experienced GPs and GPs in training) using the assessment instrument. The variance attributable to each identified variable in the study was established by analysis of variance. Generalisability theory was then used to investigate the instrument's ability to discriminate among SEA reports.
resultsContent validity was demonstrated with at least 8 of 10 experts endorsing all 10 items of the assessment instrument. The overall G coefficient for the instrument was moderate to good (G>0.70), indicating that the instrument can provide consistent information on the standard achieved by the SEA report. There was moderate inter-rater reliability (G>0.60) when four raters were used to judge the quality of the SEA.
conclusionsThis study provides the first steps towards validating an instrument that can provide educational feedback to GPs on their analysis of significant events. The key area identified to improve instrument reliability is variation among peer assessors in their assessment of SEA reports. Further validity and reliability testing should be carried out to provide GPs, their appraisers and contractual bodies with a validated feedback instrument on this aspect of the general practice quality agenda.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.