Peer Assessment of Outpatient Consultation Letters
Author Information
Author(s): Keely Erin, Myers Kathryn, Dojeiji Suzan, Campbell Craig
Primary Institution: University of Ottawa
Hypothesis
The study aimed to determine the feasibility and satisfaction of a peer assessment program on consultation letters and to determine inter-rater reliability between family physicians and specialists.
Conclusion
Most participants found peer assessment of letters feasible and beneficial, leading to long-lasting changes in some individuals.
Supporting Evidence
- 6 out of 7 writers found the feedback useful and appropriate.
- 5 out of 7 writers made immediate changes to their letters after receiving feedback.
- 6 out of 9 writers maintained changes in their letters six months later.
Takeaway
Doctors can improve their letters by getting feedback from their peers, and many found this process helpful.
Methodology
A rating scale of nine 5-point Likert scale items was developed, and letters were rated by specialists and family physicians.
Potential Biases
Different opinions on what constitutes an ideal letter may have influenced ratings.
Limitations
The study was a pilot project with a small sample limited to Internal Medicine.
Participant Demographics
Nine Internal Medicine specialists/subspecialists from two tertiary care centres participated.
Statistical Information
P-Value
0.0001
Statistical Significance
p < 0.01
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website