Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2022
Effect of Peer Benchmarking on Specialist Electronic Consult Performance in a Los Angeles Safety-Net: a Cluster Randomized Trial.
Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03784950 (Application of Behavioral Economics to Improve the Quality and Value of eConsult Specialty Reviews), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Application of Behavioral Economics to Improve the Quality and Value of eConsult Specialty Reviews
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors Influencing Primary Care Physicians' Intent to Refer Patients With Hypertension to a Digital Remote Blood Pressure Monitoring Program: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Benefits of Providing Feedback and Utilisation Metrics to Specialists on Their Participation in eConsult.Journal of European CME · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSince the advent of COVID-19, accelerated adoption of systems that reduce face-to-face encounters has outpaced training and best practices. Electronic consultations (eConsults), structured communications between PCPs and specialists regarding a case, have been effective in reducing face-to-face specialist encounters. As the health system rapidly adapts to multiple new practices and communication tools, new mechanisms to measure and improve performance in this context are needed.
objectiveTo test whether feedback comparing physicians to top performing peers using co-specialists' ratings improves performance.
designCluster-randomized controlled trial
participantsEighty facility-specialty clusters and 214 clinicians
interventionProviders in the feedback arms were sent messages that announced their membership in an elite group of "Top Performers" or provided actionable recommendations with feedback for providers that were "Not Top Performers." MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcomes were changes in peer ratings in the following performance dimensions after feedback was received: (1) elicitation of information from primary care practitioners; (2) adherence to institutional clinical guidelines; (3) agreement with peer's medical decision-making; (4) educational value; (5) relationship building. KEY
resultsSpecialists showed significant improvements on 3 of the 5 consultation performance dimensions: medical decision-making (odds ratio 1.52, 95% confidence interval 1.08-2.14, p<.05), educational value (1.86, 1.17-2.96) and relationship building (1.63, 1.13-2.35) (both p<.01).
conclusionsThe pandemic has shed light on clinicians' commitment to professionalism and service as we rapidly adapt to changing paradigms. Interventions that appeal to professional norms can help improve the efficacy of new systems of practice. We show that specialists' performance can be measured and improved with feedback using aspirational norms.
trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov NCT03784950.
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.