Peer learning is both preferable and less expensive than score-based peer review: Initial experience at a tertiary academic center

Abstract

PurposeTo examine radiologist experiences and perceptions during a transition from score-based peer review to a peer learning program, and to assess differences in time-cost efficiency between the two models of quality improvement. MethodsDifferences in Likert scale survey responses from radiologists (N = 27) in a multispecialty group at a single tertiary academic center before and following intervention were evaluated by Mann-Whitney U test. Multiple variable linear regression analysis assessed independent variables and program preference. ResultsAll positive impacts rated significantly higher for the peer learning program. Workflow disruption for the peer learning program rated significantly lower. 70.4 % (19 of 27) preferred the new program, and 25.9 % (7 of 27) preferred the old program. Only the “worth investment” questionnaire score demonstrated a significant correlation to program preference and with an effect that was greatest among all variables (Beta = 1.11, p = 0.02). There was a significantly decreased amount of time per month used to complete peer learning exercises (0.76 ± 0.45 h, N = 27) versus peer review exercises (1.71 ± 1.84 h, N = 34, p = 0.011). The result was a difference of 0.95 ± 1.89 h/month (11.4 ± 22.7 h/year), translating to an estimated direct salary time-cost saving of $1653.68/year/radiologists and a direct productivity time-cost saving of $3469.39/year/radiologist when utilizing the peer learning program. ConclusionsThere was a strongly positive perception of the new peer learning program. There was a substantial implied direct time-cost saving from the transition to the peer learning program. PrecisThe peer learning model emphasizes learning from errors via feedback in a non-punitive environment. This model was positively perceived and demonstrated substantial implied direct time-cost saving.