Peer-to-Peer Case Review as a Strategy to Improve Sepsis Education in Graduate Medical Education.

Spartan medical research journal Pub Date : 2026-04-08 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.51894/001c.159860
Obert Xu, Bryanna De Lima, Kenneth DeVane, David Jones, Mohamud Daya, Christopher Greenlee, Andrew Terrell, Scott Sherry, Haley Manella
{"title":"Peer-to-Peer Case Review as a Strategy to Improve Sepsis Education in Graduate Medical Education.","authors":"Obert Xu, Bryanna De Lima, Kenneth DeVane, David Jones, Mohamud Daya, Christopher Greenlee, Andrew Terrell, Scott Sherry, Haley Manella","doi":"10.51894/001c.159860","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We conducted an educational intervention using a peer-to-peer case review process to improve emergency medicine (EM) resident sepsis knowledge and diagnostic confidence. Local quality audits in our academic emergency department (ED) identified poor compliance in addressing adult cases of severe sepsis and septic shock, suggesting an educational gap. We evaluated whether a facilitated, peer-to-peer case review process improved EM resident sepsis knowledge and diagnostic confidence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a single-site, pre-test/post-test educational QI evaluation among senior EM residents. Using routinely audited severe sepsis and septic shock cases that did not meet bundle expectations, residents completed brief, asynchronous peer case reviews with a standardized checklist and provided structured written feedback to the original care teams. Educational impact was evaluated at Kirkpatrick Level 2 (learning) using paired pre-post assessments: a 12-item single-best-answer knowledge test and a 4-point self-reported diagnostic confidence survey. Paired pre/post knowledge scores were compared with the Wilcoxon signed rank test; confidence was summarized descriptively. The institutional review board determined this not human research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean knowledge accuracy improved from 70% (8.36/12) to 85% (10.14/12), an increase of 14.9 percentage points (p = 0.003). The proportion scoring in the 76-100% band increased by 29%, and the number of scores over 90% increased by 53%. Confidence increased for sepsis (71.4% to 78.6%) and remained constant for severe sepsis at 78.6% but decreased for septic shock (92.9% to 85.7%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A resident-led, asynchronous peer case review process was associated with significantly improved sepsis knowledge and minimal gains in diagnostic confidence for sepsis and severe sepsis. This low-resource approach is feasible for unit-level implementation and may be adaptable to other time-sensitive conditions with complex bundle requirements.</p>","PeriodicalId":74853,"journal":{"name":"Spartan medical research journal","volume":"10 3","pages":"51-58"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13067934/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spartan medical research journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51894/001c.159860","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: We conducted an educational intervention using a peer-to-peer case review process to improve emergency medicine (EM) resident sepsis knowledge and diagnostic confidence. Local quality audits in our academic emergency department (ED) identified poor compliance in addressing adult cases of severe sepsis and septic shock, suggesting an educational gap. We evaluated whether a facilitated, peer-to-peer case review process improved EM resident sepsis knowledge and diagnostic confidence.

Methods: We conducted a single-site, pre-test/post-test educational QI evaluation among senior EM residents. Using routinely audited severe sepsis and septic shock cases that did not meet bundle expectations, residents completed brief, asynchronous peer case reviews with a standardized checklist and provided structured written feedback to the original care teams. Educational impact was evaluated at Kirkpatrick Level 2 (learning) using paired pre-post assessments: a 12-item single-best-answer knowledge test and a 4-point self-reported diagnostic confidence survey. Paired pre/post knowledge scores were compared with the Wilcoxon signed rank test; confidence was summarized descriptively. The institutional review board determined this not human research.

Results: Mean knowledge accuracy improved from 70% (8.36/12) to 85% (10.14/12), an increase of 14.9 percentage points (p = 0.003). The proportion scoring in the 76-100% band increased by 29%, and the number of scores over 90% increased by 53%. Confidence increased for sepsis (71.4% to 78.6%) and remained constant for severe sepsis at 78.6% but decreased for septic shock (92.9% to 85.7%).

Conclusion: A resident-led, asynchronous peer case review process was associated with significantly improved sepsis knowledge and minimal gains in diagnostic confidence for sepsis and severe sepsis. This low-resource approach is feasible for unit-level implementation and may be adaptable to other time-sensitive conditions with complex bundle requirements.

在研究生医学教育中,以点对点案例复习作为改进败血症教育的策略。
简介:我们采用点对点的病例回顾过程进行了教育干预,以提高急诊医学(EM)住院医生的败血症知识和诊断信心。我们的学术急诊科(ED)的地方质量审计发现,在处理成人严重脓毒症和脓毒性休克病例时,依从性较差,这表明教育差距。我们评估了便利的、点对点的病例审查过程是否提高了EM住院医生的败血症知识和诊断信心。方法:我们对老年EM居民进行了单点、测试前/测试后的教育QI评估。使用常规审计的严重脓毒症和脓毒性休克病例,住院医生使用标准化的检查表完成简短的、异步的同行病例审查,并向原始护理团队提供结构化的书面反馈。教育影响在Kirkpatrick Level 2(学习)中进行评估,使用配对的前后评估:12项单最佳答案知识测试和4点自我报告诊断信心调查。配对前后知识得分比较采用Wilcoxon符号秩检验;对信心进行了描述性的总结。机构审查委员会认定这不是人体研究。结果:平均知识正确率由70%(8.36/12)提高到85%(10.14/12),提高14.9个百分点(p = 0.003)。得分在76-100%的比例增加了29%,得分在90%以上的人数增加了53%。脓毒症的置信度增加(71.4%至78.6%),严重脓毒症的置信度保持不变(78.6%),但脓毒症休克的置信度下降(92.9%至85.7%)。结论:住院医生主导的异步同行病例审查过程与脓毒症知识的显著提高和脓毒症和严重脓毒症诊断信心的最小增加相关。这种低资源的方法对于单元级实现是可行的,并且可能适用于具有复杂包需求的其他时间敏感条件。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书