ReviewPediatric quality & safety
Optimizing Professional Practice Evaluation to Enable a Nonpunitive Learning Health System Approach to Peer Review.
Review in Pediatric quality & safety. 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.
- Physician perspectives of clinical performance feedback and impact on well-being: a qualitative exploration.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Assessment of Bias in Patient Safety Reporting Systems Categorized by Physician Gender, Race and Ethnicity, and Faculty Rank: A Qualitative Study.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- The Science of Learning Health Systems: Scoping Review of Empirical Research.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- Standards of Care to Practice: Redefining Type 1 Diabetes Care within Learning Health Systems.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Healthcare organizations are focused on 2 different and sometimes conflicting tasks; (1) accelerate the improvement of clinical care delivery and (2) collect provider-specific data to determine the competency of providers. We describe creating a process to meet both of these aims while maintaining a culture that fosters improvement and teamwork.
methodsWe created a new process to sequester activities related to learning and improvement from those focused on individual provider performance. We describe this process, including data on the number and type of cases reviewed and survey results of the participant's perception of the new process.
resultsIn the new model, professional practice evaluation committees evaluate events purely to identify system issues and human factors related to medical decision-making, resulting in actional improvements. There are separate and sequestered processes that evaluate concerns around an individual provider's clinical competence or behavior. During the first 5 years of this process, 207 of 217 activities (99.5%) related to system issues rather than issues concerning individual provider competence or behavior. Participants perceived the new process as focused on identifying system errors (4.3/5), nonpunitive (4.2/5), an improvement (4.0/5), and helped with engagement in our system and contributed to wellness (4.0/5).
conclusionWe believe this sequestered approach has enabled us to achieve both the oversight mandates to ensure provider competence while enabling a learning health systems approach to build the cultural aspects of trust and teamwork that are essential to driving continuous improvement in our system of care.
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.