Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Implementation of peer learning conferences throughout a multi-site abdominal radiology practice

  • Perspective
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 11 June 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

Purpose

To initiate a peer learning conference for our abdominal radiology division across multiple geographically separated sites and different time zones, and to determine radiologist preference for peer learning versus traditional score-based peer review.

Methods

We implemented a monthly peer learning videoconference for our abdominal radiology division. Surveys regarding radiologist opinion regarding traditional peer review and the new peer learning conferences were conducted before and after 6 months of conferences.

Results

Peer learning conferences were well attended across our multiple sites, with an average of 43 participants per conference. Radiologist opinion regarding peer review was poor, with survey radiologists responding positively to only 1 out of 12 process questions. Opinion regarding peer learning was extremely favorable, with radiologists responding positively to 12 out of the same 12 process questions. After 6 months of peer learning conferences, 87.9% of surveyed radiologists wished to continue them in some fashion, and no one preferred to return to score-based peer review alone.

Conclusion

We successfully implemented a peer learning conference for our abdominal radiology division spread out over multiple geographic sites. Our radiologists strongly preferred peer learning conferences over our traditional peer review system for quality control.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7.
Fig. 8
Fig. 9.

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  1. James JT. (2013) A new, evidence-based estimate of patient harms associated with hospital care. J Patient Saf 9:122-128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Graber ML (2013) The incidence of diagnostic error in medicine. BMJ Qual Saf 22 Suppl 2:ii21-ii27.

  3. Itri JN, Tappouni RR, McEachern RO, et al. (2018) Fundamentals of Diagnostic Error in Imaging. Radiographics 38:1845-1865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Larson DB, Donnely LF, Podberesky DJ, et al. (2017) Peer feedback, learning, and improvement: Answering the call of the Institute of Medicine report on diagnostic error. Radiology 283:231-241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Borgstede JP, Lewis RS, Bhargavan M, et al. (2004) RADPEER quality assurance program: A multifacility study of interpretive disagreement rates. J Am Coll Radiol 1:59-65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Soffa DJ, Lewis RS, Sunshine JH, et al. (2004) Disagreement in interpretation: A method for the development of benchmarks for quality assurance in imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 1:212-217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Larson DB, Broder JC, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, et al. (2020) Transitioning from peer review to peer learning: Report of the 2020 Peer Learning Summit. J Am Coll Radiol 17:1499-1508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Larson DB, Nance JJ. (2011) Rethinking peer review: What aviation can teach radiology about performance improvement. Radiology 259:626-32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bender LC, Linnau KF, Meier EN, et al. (2012) Interrater agreement in the evaluation of discrepant imaging findings with the RADPEER system. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:1320-1327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Eisenberg RL, Cunningham ML, Siewert B, et al. (2014) Survey of faculty perceptions regarding a peer review system. J Am Coll Radiol 11:397-401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Abujudeh H, Pyatt RS, Bruno MA, et al. (2014) RADPEER peer review: Relevance, use, concerns, challenges, and direction forward. J Am Coll Radiol 11:899-904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Liao M, Tan N. (2020) Collective intelligence of peer learning: Promoting culture of learning and improvement among radiologists. Curr Prob Diag Radiol Oct 5, S0363–0188(20)30193–6.

  13. Armstrong V, Tan N, Sekhar A, et al. (2020) Peer learning through multi-institutional web-based case conferences: Perceived value (and challenges) from abdominal, cardiothoracic, and musculoskeletal radiology case conference participants. Acad Radiol 27:1641-1646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Goldberg-Stein S, Frigini LA, Long S, et al. (2017) ACR RADPEER committee white paper with 2016 updates: Revised scoring system, new classifications, self-review, and subspecialized reports. J Am Coll Radiol 14:1080-1086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sharpe RE, Huffman RI, Congdon RG, et al. (2018) Implementation of a peer learning program replacing score-based peer review in a multispecialty integrated practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 211:949-956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Donnelly LF, Larson DB, Heller RE, et al. (2018) Practical suggestions on how to move from peer review to peer learning. AJR Am J Roentgenol 210:578-582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Rd, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA

    Andrew W. Bowman & Deborah A. Baumgarten

  2. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 5777 Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA

    Nelly Tan & Frederick Chen

  3. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA

    Daniel A. Adamo & Sudhakar K. Venkatesh

Authors
  1. Andrew W. Bowman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nelly Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel A. Adamo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Frederick Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sudhakar K. Venkatesh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Deborah A. Baumgarten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew W. Bowman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised: The figure 1B and figure 3 has been corrected.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 17 kb)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 16 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bowman, A.W., Tan, N., Adamo, D.A. et al. Implementation of peer learning conferences throughout a multi-site abdominal radiology practice. Abdom Radiol 46, 5489–5499 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03114-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03114-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation