Implementation of a Peer-to-Peer Teaching Intervention Improved Electronic Discharge Summary Documentation by New Internal Medicine Residents
The early months of residency training (EMCT) from July to September can be overwhelming for interns, or post-graduate year one (PGY1) residents. Traditional orientation may not be sufficient to ensure a smooth transition to residency. Interns are responsible for completing discharge summaries in most training hospitals but receive little or no prior training. The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a peer-to-peer orientation of new (incoming) PGY1 internal medicine residents by present (outgoing) PGY1 residents.
This was an observational, analytical (cohort), single-center study. The intervention group, new (incoming) 2016 internal medicine, or PGY1, residents were exposed to a 2-h peer-to-peer orientation, in addition to the traditional orientation process. The internal medicine residents from the previous year (2015 PGY1 residents), exposed to only the traditional orientation process (TOP) prior to their commencement of residency, served as the control group. A comparison between the groups’ discharge summary documentation (DC summary) was performed using an independent two-sample t test; linear regression analysis was applied to control for potential confounders.
Statistically significant differences were found in mean discharge summary scores between the intervention and control group. The intervention group had a higher average score (mean 73.6; standard deviation (SD) 12.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 68.0–79.1) than the control group (mean 65.7; SD 7.9; 95% CI 62.5–69.0). Using a two-tailed independent t test, the mean difference between both groups was found to be 7.8, or 12% (95% CI 1.8–13.8; p = 0.012).
This highly portable intervention may improve discharge summary documentations by new PGY1 residents during EMCT if implemented nationwide.
KeywordsMedical education Electronic discharge summary Clinical documentation Internal medicine residents
Compliance with Ethical Standards
The need for “special research informed consent” was waived by IRB, and departmental approval for quality improvement project was obtained as per our hospital policy. Voluntary completion of a pre-intervention basic demographic survey served as consent to participate in the intervention.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Young JQ, Ranji SR, Wachter RM, Lee CM, Niehaus B, Auerbach AD. “July effect”: impact of the academic year-end changeover on patient outcomes: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(5):309–15. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-5-201109060-00354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Rohr R. Engaging physicians in clear documentation: a pathway to value. Physician leadership journal. 2015;2(6):60–2.Google Scholar
- 11.Englesbe MJ, Pelletier SJ, Magee JC, Gauger P, Schifftner T, Henderson WG, et al. Seasonal variation in surgical outcomes as measured by the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP). Ann Surg. 2007;246(3):456–62; discussion 63-5. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31814855f2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Barro J, Huckman R, Song H. Cohort turnover and productivity:the July phenomenon in teaching hospitals. 2005. [cited 2016 December, 27]; Available from: http://www.nber.org/papers/w11182.
- 18.NQF. Endorsement summary: care coordination measures. Washington, DC: National Quality Forum; 2012. [cited 2017 August, 6]; Available from: http://www.ohhs.ri.gov/documents/documents12/Care_Coordination_Measures.pdf Google Scholar
- 19.Louden K. Creating a better discharge summary. American College of Physicians; 2009. [cited 2016 April, 23]; Available from: https://acphospitalist.org/archives/2009/03/discharge.htm.
- 20.Kind AJH, Smith MA. Documentation of mandated discharge summary components in transitions from acute to subacute care. In: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Keyes MA, Grady ML, editors. Advances in patient safety: new directions and alternative approaches, vol. 2. Rockville: Culture and Redesign; 2008.Google Scholar
- 23.Hulley SB. Designing clinical research: Wolters Kluwer health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007.Google Scholar