Benefits of Providing Feedback and Utilisation Metrics to Specialists on Their Participation in eConsult.

Journal of European CME Pub Date : 2022-09-02 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1080/21614083.2022.2116193
Erin Keely, Rhea Mitchell, Sheena Guglani, Douglas Archibald, Amir Afkham, Clare Liddy
{"title":"Benefits of Providing Feedback and Utilisation Metrics to Specialists on Their Participation in eConsult.","authors":"Erin Keely,&nbsp;Rhea Mitchell,&nbsp;Sheena Guglani,&nbsp;Douglas Archibald,&nbsp;Amir Afkham,&nbsp;Clare Liddy","doi":"10.1080/21614083.2022.2116193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Our study evaluates the impact of feedback sent to specialists participating in eConsult services. eConsult Specialists from two eConsult services in Ontario, Canada, received feedback on their use of eConsult via bi-annual specialist reports. An 11-item survey was developed to evaluate the impact, content, and distribution process of these specialist reports. We distributed 742 specialist reports in March 2021 and surveyed the specialists in July 2021. Our findings show that specialists largely felt that the feedback received validated their efforts (83%) and that receiving the report made them more likely to continue to participate in the eConsult service (59%). Most did not feel judged (74%) or distressed (79%) by the reports, and 72% said that reporting the median self-reported billing time did not impact their own billing times. Overall, eConsult services can capture, report and aggregate data valuable to specialists and is useful for Continuing Professional Development. Benefits and lack of risk implementing this type of feedback should encourage other services to consider similar processes.</p>","PeriodicalId":87300,"journal":{"name":"Journal of European CME","volume":"11 1","pages":"2116193"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ca/02/ZJEC_11_2116193.PMC9448361.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of European CME","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21614083.2022.2116193","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Our study evaluates the impact of feedback sent to specialists participating in eConsult services. eConsult Specialists from two eConsult services in Ontario, Canada, received feedback on their use of eConsult via bi-annual specialist reports. An 11-item survey was developed to evaluate the impact, content, and distribution process of these specialist reports. We distributed 742 specialist reports in March 2021 and surveyed the specialists in July 2021. Our findings show that specialists largely felt that the feedback received validated their efforts (83%) and that receiving the report made them more likely to continue to participate in the eConsult service (59%). Most did not feel judged (74%) or distressed (79%) by the reports, and 72% said that reporting the median self-reported billing time did not impact their own billing times. Overall, eConsult services can capture, report and aggregate data valuable to specialists and is useful for Continuing Professional Development. Benefits and lack of risk implementing this type of feedback should encourage other services to consider similar processes.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为专家参与咨询提供反馈和利用指标的好处。
我们的研究评估了反馈给参与eConsult服务的专家的影响。来自加拿大安大略省两个咨询服务机构的咨询专家通过两年一次的专家报告收到了关于他们使用咨询服务的反馈。一项包含11个项目的调查被用来评估这些专家报告的影响、内容和分发过程。我们于2021年3月分发了742份专家报告,并于2021年7月对专家进行了调查。我们的调查结果显示,大部分专家认为收到的反馈证明了他们的努力(83%),收到报告使他们更有可能继续参与eConsult服务(59%)。大多数人(74%)没有因为报告而感到被评判(79%)或苦恼(72%),72%的人表示报告自我报告的计费时间中位数不会影响他们自己的计费时间。总体而言,eConsult服务可以捕获、报告和汇总对专家有价值的数据,对持续专业发展很有用。实施这类反馈的好处和缺乏风险应鼓励其他服务考虑类似的过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊最新文献
Net Promoter Score (NPS): What Does Net Promoter Score Offer in the Evaluation of Continuing Medical Education? Personalised versus non-individualised case-based CME: A randomised pilot study. A European Approach to Micro-credentials for Lifelong Learning and Employability. Leading Change Together: Supporting Collaborative Practice through Joint Accreditation for Interprofessional Continuing Education. Preparing the Leaders of Tomorrow: Learnings from a Two-Year Community of Practice in Fragility Fractures.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1