Personalized peer-comparison feedback and its effect on emergency medicine resident ultrasound scan numbers

6Citations
Citations of this article
25Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Clinician-performed ultrasound has become a widely utilized tool in emergency medicine and is a mandatory component of the residency curricula. We aimed to assess the effect of personalized peer-comparison feedback on the number of ultrasound scans performed by emergency medicine residents. Findings: A personalized peer-comparison feedback was performed by sending 44 emergency medicine residents a document including personally identified scan numbers and class averages. The number of ultrasound scans per clinical shift for a 3-month period before and after the feedback intervention was calculated. The average number of ultrasound exams per shift improved from 0.39 scans/shift before to 0.61 scans/shift after feedback (p = 0.04). Among the second year residents, the scans/shift ratio improved from 0.35 to 0.87 (p = 0.07); for third year residents, from 0.51 to 0.58 (p = 0.46); and from 0.33 to 0.41 (p = 0.21) for the fourth year residents before and after the intervention, respectively. Conclusions: A personalized peer-comparison feedback provided to emergency medicine residents resulted in increased ultrasound scan numbers per clinical shift. Incorporating this method of feedback may help encourage residents to scan more frequently. © 2014 Hempel et al.; licensee Springer. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hempel, D., Pivetta, E., & Kimberly, H. H. (2014). Personalized peer-comparison feedback and its effect on emergency medicine resident ultrasound scan numbers. Critical Ultrasound Journal, 6(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1186/2036-7902-6-1

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