Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Improving Radiology Peer Learning: Comparing a Novel Electronic Peer Learning Tool and a Traditional Score-Based Peer Review System.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 01; 212(1):135-141.AA

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the yields of peer learning between a radiology electronic peer learning tool (PLT) and a score-based peer review (SBPR) system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study was performed from May 1, 2017, through October 31, 2017, at a 776-bed academic hospital performing more than 620,000 radiology examinations annually. Use of a PLT that generates alerts facilitating closed-loop feedback was initiated on March 1, 2017. Functions included providing peers with the following: clinical follow-up after review of prior reports, positive feedback, and consultation to solicit second opinions. In the same period, an SBPR system yielded the following scores: 1, agree with original interpretation; 2, minor discrepancy; 3, moderate discrepancy; and 4, major discrepancy. Potential learning opportunities were defined as cases receiving a clinical follow-up alert (PLT system) and reports scored 3 or 4 (SBPR system). Primary outcome was clinically significant feedback per total reports reviewed, measured as radiology report addendum rate (number with addenda divided by number of reports reviewed monthly for each system). The secondary outcome was potential learning opportunity rate (number of clinical follow-up alerts or reports scored 3 or 4 divided by the total number of radiology reports reviewed monthly). A paired t test was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The overall PLT report addendum rate was 11.2% (23 addenda/206 reports) versus 0.27% (13 addenda/4861 reports) for SBPR (p = 0.03), a 41-fold difference (11.2/0.27). The potential learning opportunity rate for PLT was 50.0% (206 clinical follow-up alerts among 412 total alerts) versus 0.53% (26 scored 3 or 4 among 4861 reports reviewed) for SBPR (p = 0.00003), a 94-fold difference (50/0.53).

CONCLUSION

A PLT improves radiology peer learning with a significantly higher yield of clinically significant feedback and potential learning opportunities compared with a traditional SBPR system.

Authors+Show Affiliations

1 Center for Evidence-Based Imaging, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA. 2 Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115.2 Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115.1 Center for Evidence-Based Imaging, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA. 2 Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115.

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

30403533

Citation

Trinh, Tony W., et al. "Improving Radiology Peer Learning: Comparing a Novel Electronic Peer Learning Tool and a Traditional Score-Based Peer Review System." AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 212, no. 1, 2019, pp. 135-141.
Trinh TW, Boland GW, Khorasani R. Improving Radiology Peer Learning: Comparing a Novel Electronic Peer Learning Tool and a Traditional Score-Based Peer Review System. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019;212(1):135-141.
Trinh, T. W., Boland, G. W., & Khorasani, R. (2019). Improving Radiology Peer Learning: Comparing a Novel Electronic Peer Learning Tool and a Traditional Score-Based Peer Review System. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology, 212(1), 135-141. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.19958
Trinh TW, Boland GW, Khorasani R. Improving Radiology Peer Learning: Comparing a Novel Electronic Peer Learning Tool and a Traditional Score-Based Peer Review System. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019;212(1):135-141. PubMed PMID: 30403533.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Improving Radiology Peer Learning: Comparing a Novel Electronic Peer Learning Tool and a Traditional Score-Based Peer Review System. AU - Trinh,Tony W, AU - Boland,Giles W, AU - Khorasani,Ramin, Y1 - 2018/11/07/ PY - 2018/11/8/pubmed PY - 2019/10/24/medline PY - 2018/11/8/entrez KW - learning opportunities KW - peer feedback KW - peer learning KW - peer learning tool KW - peer review SP - 135 EP - 141 JF - AJR. American journal of roentgenology JO - AJR Am J Roentgenol VL - 212 IS - 1 N2 - OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the yields of peer learning between a radiology electronic peer learning tool (PLT) and a score-based peer review (SBPR) system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was performed from May 1, 2017, through October 31, 2017, at a 776-bed academic hospital performing more than 620,000 radiology examinations annually. Use of a PLT that generates alerts facilitating closed-loop feedback was initiated on March 1, 2017. Functions included providing peers with the following: clinical follow-up after review of prior reports, positive feedback, and consultation to solicit second opinions. In the same period, an SBPR system yielded the following scores: 1, agree with original interpretation; 2, minor discrepancy; 3, moderate discrepancy; and 4, major discrepancy. Potential learning opportunities were defined as cases receiving a clinical follow-up alert (PLT system) and reports scored 3 or 4 (SBPR system). Primary outcome was clinically significant feedback per total reports reviewed, measured as radiology report addendum rate (number with addenda divided by number of reports reviewed monthly for each system). The secondary outcome was potential learning opportunity rate (number of clinical follow-up alerts or reports scored 3 or 4 divided by the total number of radiology reports reviewed monthly). A paired t test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The overall PLT report addendum rate was 11.2% (23 addenda/206 reports) versus 0.27% (13 addenda/4861 reports) for SBPR (p = 0.03), a 41-fold difference (11.2/0.27). The potential learning opportunity rate for PLT was 50.0% (206 clinical follow-up alerts among 412 total alerts) versus 0.53% (26 scored 3 or 4 among 4861 reports reviewed) for SBPR (p = 0.00003), a 94-fold difference (50/0.53). CONCLUSION: A PLT improves radiology peer learning with a significantly higher yield of clinically significant feedback and potential learning opportunities compared with a traditional SBPR system. SN - 1546-3141 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/30403533/Improving_Radiology_Peer_Learning:_Comparing_a_Novel_Electronic_Peer_Learning_Tool_and_a_Traditional_Score_Based_Peer_Review_System_ L2 - https://www.ajronline.org/doi/10.2214/AJR.18.19958 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -