ArticleSpartan medical research journal2025
Peer-to-Peer Case Review as a Strategy to Improve Sepsis Education in Graduate Medical Education.
Article in Spartan medical research journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Advancing Clinical Insight, Medical Education, and Global Health: A Synthesis of Evidence-Based Research and Interdisciplinary Innovation.Spartan medical research journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: We conducted an educational intervention using a peer-to-peer case review process to improve emergency medicine (EM) resident sepsis knowledge and diagnostic confidence. Local quality audits in our academic emergency department (ED) identified poor compliance in addressing adult cases of severe sepsis and septic shock, suggesting an educational gap. We evaluated whether a facilitated, peer-to-peer case review process improved EM resident sepsis knowledge and diagnostic confidence. Methods: We conducted a single-site, pre-test/post-test educational QI evaluation among senior EM residents. Using routinely audited severe sepsis and septic shock cases that did not meet bundle expectations, residents completed brief, asynchronous peer case reviews with a standardized checklist and provided structured written feedback to the original care teams. Educational impact was evaluated at Kirkpatrick Level 2 (learning) using paired pre-post assessments: a 12-item single-best-answer knowledge test and a 4-point self-reported diagnostic confidence survey. Paired pre/post knowledge scores were compared with the Wilcoxon signed rank test; confidence was summarized descriptively. The institutional review board determined this not human research. Results: Mean knowledge accuracy improved from 70% (8.36/12) to 85% (10.14/12), an increase of 14.9 percentage points (p = 0.003). The proportion scoring in the 76-100% band increased by 29%, and the number of scores over 90% increased by 53%. Confidence increased for sepsis (71.4% to 78.6%) and remained constant for severe sepsis at 78.6% but decreased for septic shock (92.9% to 85.7%). Conclusion: A resident-led, asynchronous peer case review process was associated with significantly improved sepsis knowledge and minimal gains in diagnostic confidence for sepsis and severe sepsis. This low-resource approach is feasible for unit-level implementation and may be adaptable to other time-sensitive conditions with complex bundle requirements.
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.