ArticleJournal of graduate medical education2014
A Novel Approach to Practice-Based Learning and Improvement Using a Web-Based Audit and Feedback Module.
Article in Journal of graduate medical education, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The utility of website-based quality improvement tools for health professionals: a systematic review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2024Pooled it
- Systematic review and narrative synthesis of computerized audit and feedback systems in healthcare.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Pooled it
- Improving Timely Resident Follow-Up and Communication of Results in Ambulatory Clinics Utilizing a Web-Based Audit and Feedback Module.Journal of graduate medical education · 2017Article
- No Quick Fixes: Integrating Population Health Education and Quality Improvement in a Large Residency Program.Journal for healthcare quality : official publication of the National Association for Healthcare QualityArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSystematically engaging residents in large programs in quality improvement (QI) is challenging.
objectiveTo coordinate a shared QI project in a large residency program using an online tool.
methodsA web-based QI tool guided residents through a 2-phase evaluation of performance of foot examinations in patients with diabetes. In phase 1, residents completed reviews of health records with online data entry. Residents were then presented with personal performance data relative to peers and were prompted to develop improvement plans. In phase 2, residents again reviewed personal performance. Rates of performance were compared at the program and clinic levels for each phase, with data presented for residents. Acceptability was measured by the number of residents completing each phase. Feasibility was measured by estimated faculty, programmer, and administrator time and costs.
resultsSeventy-nine of 86 eligible residents (92%) completed improvement plans and reviewed 1471 patients in phase 1, whereas 68 residents (79%) reviewed 1054 patient charts in phase 2. Rates of performance of examination increased significantly between phases (from 52% to 73% for complete examination, P < .001). Development of the tool required 130 hours of programmer time. Project analysis and management required 6 hours of administrator and faculty time monthly.
conclusionsAn online tool developed and implemented for program-wide QI initiatives successfully engaged residents to participate in QI activities. Residents using this tool demonstrated improvement in a selected quality target. This tool could be adapted by other graduate medical education programs or for faculty development.
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.