↓ Skip to main content

Comparing Resident Self-Report to Chart Audits for Quality Improvement Projects: Accurate Reflection or Cherry-Picking?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Graduate Medical Education, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Comparing Resident Self-Report to Chart Audits for Quality Improvement Projects: Accurate Reflection or Cherry-Picking?
Published in
Journal of Graduate Medical Education, December 2014
DOI 10.4300/jgme-d-13-00371.1
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Resident engagement in quality improvement is a requirement for graduate medical education, but the optimal means of instruction and evaluation of resident progress remain unknown. To determine the accuracy of self-reported chart audits in measuring resident adherence to primary care clinical practice guidelines. During the 2010-2011 academic year, second- and third-year internal medicine residents at a single, university hospital-based program performed chart audits on 10 patients from their primary care clinic to determine adherence to 16 US Preventive Services Task Force primary care guidelines. We compared residents' responses to independent audits of randomly selected patient charts by a single external reviewer. Self-reported data were collected by 18 second-year and 15 third-year residents for 330 patients. Independently, 70 patient charts were randomly selected for review by an external auditor. Overall guideline compliance was significantly higher on self-reported audits compared to external audits (82% versus 68%, P < .001). Of 16 guidelines, external audits found significantly lower rates of adherence for 5 (tetanus vaccination, osteoporosis screening, colon cancer screening, cholesterol screening, and obesity screening). Chlamydia screening was more common in audited charts than in self-reported data. Although third-year residents self-reported higher guideline adherence than second-year residents (86% versus 78%, P < .001), external audits for third-year residents found lower overall adherence (64% versus 72%, P  =  .040). Residents' self-reported chart audits may significantly overestimate guideline adherence. Increased supervision and independent review appear necessary to accurately evaluate resident performance.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 25%
Student > Master 3 25%
Researcher 3 25%
Lecturer 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 8%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Social Sciences 1 8%
Unknown 3 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 April 2023.
All research outputs
#7,870,355
of 26,876,847 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Graduate Medical Education
#985
of 1,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,664
of 373,774 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Graduate Medical Education
#10
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,876,847 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 373,774 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.