Skip navigation
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://mnclhd.intersearch.com.au/mnclhdjspui/handle/123456789/410
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorShakespeare, T. P.-
dc.contributor.authorMukherjee, R. K.-
dc.contributor.authorLu, J. J.-
dc.contributor.authorLee, K. M.-
dc.contributor.authorBack, M. F.-
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-14T23:10:36Z-
dc.date.available2025-01-14T23:10:36Z-
dc.date.issued2005-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Cancer Education. 2005 Winter;20(4):216-21. doi: 10.1207/s15430154jce2004_9.en
dc.identifier.urihttps://mnclhd.intersearch.com.au/mnclhdjspui/handle/123456789/410-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Meta-analyses demonstrate audit with feedback (AWF) is effective continuing medical education (CME). However, efficacy varies between specialties, with little published radiation oncologist (RO)-specific evidence. We evaluated an AWF CME intervention for ROs determining efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and participant satisfaction. Methods: CME program: The CME incorporated fortnightly random patient chart audit, scoring management adequacy via a checklist. Scores were presented at a same-day institutional meeting, and case management discussed. Senior peers provided individualized, educational feedback. Evaluation: Changes in behavior and performance were evaluated by chart review of new patients seen by ROs in the 2 months before commencement of AWF (T0), and at months 13-14 of the program (T1). Behavior and performance were evaluated with a validated, reproducible, 19-item instrument. Criteria for each case audited included 10 targeted and 3 nontargeted behavior items and 6 performance items; each scored 1 point if deemed adequate (maximum score 19). Cost-effectiveness was reported as cost to the institution per item point gained. The mean score (out of 5) of a 14-item questionnaire evaluated program perception. Results: A total of 113 and 118 charts were evaluated at T0 and T1, respectively. Mean score of targeted behavior improved between T0 and T1 (from 8.7 to 9.2 out of 10, P = .0001), with no significant improvement of nontargeted behavior/performance items. Annual costs and cost-per-point gained were US 7,897 dollars and 15 dollars. Participant satisfaction was positive, increasing after efficacy result distribution (P = .0001). Conclusion: Audit with comparative, individualized, educational feedback is cost-effective and positively perceived CME, significantly improving targeted RO behavior. Oncologists' CME design and evaluation require further research.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectRadiation Oncologistsen
dc.subjectEducation, Medical, Continuingen
dc.subjectFeedbacken
dc.titleEvaluation of an audit with feedback continuing medical education program for radiation oncologistsen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.mnclhdauthorShakespeare, Thomas P.-
Appears in Collections:Oncology / Cancer

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Who's citing