Peer Discussion Decreases Practice Intensity and Increases Certainty in Clinical Decision-Making Among Internal Medicine Residents

1Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background Team-based decision-making has been shown to reduce diagnostic error, increase clinical certainty, and decrease adverse events. Objective This study aimed to assess the effect of peer discussion on resident practice intensity (PI) and clinical certainty (CC). Methods A vignette-based instrument was adapted to measure PI, defined as the likelihood of ordering additional diagnostic tests, consultations or empiric treatment, and CC. Internal medicine residents at 7 programs in the Philadelphia area from April 2018 to June 2019 were eligible for inclusion in the study. Participants formed groups and completed each item of the instrument individually and as a group with time for peer discussion in between individual and group responses. Predicted group PI and CC scores were compared with measured group PI and CC scores, respectively, using paired t testing. Results Sixty-nine groups participated in the study (response rate 34%, average group size 2.88). The measured group PI score (2.29, SD = 0.23) was significantly lower than the predicted group PI score (2.33, SD = 0.22) with a mean difference of 0.04 (SD = 0.10; 95% CI 0.02–0.07; P =.0002). The measured group CC score (0.493, SD = 0.164) was significantly higher than the predicted group CC score (0.475, SD = 0.136) with a mean difference of 0.018 (SD = 0.073; 95% CI 0.0006–0.0356; P =.022). Conclusions In this multicenter study of resident PI, peer discussion reduced PI and increased CC more than would be expected from averaging group members’ individual scores.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Etherington, N. B., Clancy, C., Jones, R. B., Dine, C. J., & Diemer, G. (2021). Peer Discussion Decreases Practice Intensity and Increases Certainty in Clinical Decision-Making Among Internal Medicine Residents. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 13(3), 371–376. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-20-00948.1

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free