ArticleBMJ open quality2022
Exploring paediatricians' experiences with performance improvement modules and quality improvement.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating Emotional Health Assessments into Pediatric Care: Initial Learnings from an MOC Part 4 Activity.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
- Improving Guideline-concordant Antibiotic Use for Acute Otitis Media in a Pediatric Primary Care Network.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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe American Board of Pediatrics' (ABP) maintenance of certification (MOC) programme seeks to continue educating paediatricians throughout their careers by encouraging lifelong learning and continued improvement. The programme includes four parts, each centring on a different aspect of medical practice. Part 4 MOC centres on quality improvement (QI). Surveys by the ABP suggest that paediatricians are dissatisfied with aspects of part 4, but their reasons are unclear. This study sought to explore factors contributing to dissatisfaction with part 4 by focusing on performance improvement modules (PIMs), a popular means of achieving part 4 credit.
methodsThe study used cross-sectional purposive sampling drawing from US physicians working in a range of practice settings: private outpatient, hospital, academic and low-income clinics. The sampling frame was divided by practice characteristics and satisfaction level, derived from a five-point Likert item asking about physician satisfaction regarding a recent PIM. In-depth interviews were conducted with 21 physicians, and the interview data were coded, categorised into themes and analysed using a framework analysis approach.
resultsPaediatricians expressed nuanced views of PIMs and remain globally dissatisfied with part 4, although reasons for dissatisfaction varied. Concerns with PIMs included: (1) excessive time and effort; (2) limited improvement and (3) lack of clinically relevant topics. While most agreed that QI is important, participants felt persistently dissatisfied with the mechanics of doing PIMs, especially when QI tasks fell outside of their typical work regimen.
conclusionsPaediatricians agreed that part 4, PIMs, and QI efforts in general still lack clinical relevance and need to be more easily incorporated into practice workflow. Clinicians specifically felt that PIMs must be directly integrated with physicians' practice settings in terms of topic, data quality and metrics, and must address practice differences in time and monetary resources for completing large or complex projects.
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.