Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

P145: The role of audit and feedback in the ED setting: are physicians able to accurately predict their own practice?

  • A. Stang (a1), S. Law, I. Gjata (a1), K. Burak (a1) and S. Dowling (a1)...

Abstract

Introduction: Prior research has shown that audit and feedback (A &F) can be an effective tool for practice change. However, questions remain about how to optimize A&F. The objectives of this project were to determine if: 1) there are differences in practice between physicians who do, and do not, consent to receive a confidential report on their practice and; 2) if there is a relationship between consenting physicians self-predicted and actual practice. Methods: This was a prospective, cross-sectional study embedded in a larger quality improvement (QI) initiative to align physician practice with best evidence in the emergency department (ED) care of infants with bronchiolitis. All physicians practicing in the ED of a tertiary care pediatric hospital were offered the opportunity to consent to receive an individual, confidential data report on their practice. Prior to receiving their data, consenting physicians completed a survey which asked them to predict the proportion of bronchiolitic patients for whom they ordered diagnostic tests or treatments. We used chi-squared testing to compare the proportion of consenting and non-consenting physicians whose diagnostic test (Chest X-ray (CXR), viral study) and treatment (steroid, Ventolin) ordering was above the median for all ED physicians. We used Pearsons correlation to assess the relationship between consenting physicians self -predicted and actual practice. Results: 56% (37/66) of physicians consented to receive a data report. The median proportion of patients with an x-ray ordered was 20%, 63% of non-consenters were above the median, compared to 36% of consenters (X2 (1, N=66)=4.91 p=0.03). For viral testing, 31% of patients had a test ordered, with 50% of non-consenters and 50% consenters above the median (( X2 (1, N=66) =0 p=1); 11% of patients had steroids ordered, with 53% of non-consenters and 47% of consenters above the median ( X2 (1, N=66)=0.24 p-0.621); and 18% of patients had Ventolin ordered, with 60% of non-consenters and 42% of consenters above the median ( X2 (1, N=66) =2.2 p=0.138). There was a moderate correlation between physicians predicted and actual practice with respect to viral testing (r=0.67), but minimal correlation for CXR (0.05), steroids (r=0.17) or Ventolin (r=0.33) ordering. Conclusion: The finding that physicians have a limited ability to accurately predict their own performance emphasizes the importance of providing physicians with feedback. However, our results suggest that the consent process may be a potential barrier to effective A &F.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      P145: The role of audit and feedback in the ED setting: are physicians able to accurately predict their own practice?
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      P145: The role of audit and feedback in the ED setting: are physicians able to accurately predict their own practice?
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      P145: The role of audit and feedback in the ED setting: are physicians able to accurately predict their own practice?
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Corresponding author

Keywords

P145: The role of audit and feedback in the ED setting: are physicians able to accurately predict their own practice?

  • A. Stang (a1), S. Law, I. Gjata (a1), K. Burak (a1) and S. Dowling (a1)...

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed