Search

Purpose: Physicians' use of self-assessment to guide quality improvement or board certification activities often does not correlate with more objective measures, and they may spend valuable time on activities that support their strengths instead of addressing gaps. Our objective was to study whether viewing quality measures, with peer comparisons, would affect the selection of certification activities.Methods: We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial-the Trial of Data Exchange for Maintenance of certification and Raising Quality (TRADEMaRQ)-with 4 partner organizations during 2015-2017. Physicians were presented their quality data within their online certification portfolios before (intervention) vs after (control) they chose board certification activities. The primary outcome was whether the selected activity addressed a quality gap (a quality area in which the physician scored below the mean for the study population).Results: Of 2,570 invited physicians, 254 physicians completed the study: 130 in the intervention group and 124 in the control group. Nearly one-fifth of participating physicians did not complete any certification activities during the study. A sizable minority of those in the intervention group, 18.4%, never reviewed their quality dashboard. Overall, just 27.2% of completed certification activities addressed a quality gap, and there was no significant difference in this outcome in the intervention group vs the control group in either bivariate or adjusted analyses (odds ratio = 1.28; 95% CI, 0.90-1.82).Conclusions: Physicians did not use quality performance data in choosing certification activities. Certification boards are being pressed to make their programs relevant to practice, less burdensome, and supportive of quality improvement in alignment with value-based payment models. Using practice data to drive certification choices would meet these goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Scribes are increasingly being used in clinical practice despite a lack of high-quality evidence regarding their effects. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of medical scribes on physician satisfaction, patient satisfaction, and charting efficiency.Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial in which physicians in an academic family medicine clinic were randomized to 1 week with a scribe then 1 week without a scribe for the course of 1 year. Scribes drafted all relevant documentation, which was reviewed by the physician before attestation and signing. In encounters without a scribe, the physician performed all charting duties. Our outcomes were physician satisfaction, measured by a 5-item instrument that included physicians' perceptions of chart quality and chart accuracy; patient satisfaction, measured by a 6-item instrument; and charting efficiency, measured by time to chart close.Results: Scribes improved all aspects of physician satisfaction, including overall satisfaction with clinic (OR = 10.75), having enough face time with patients (OR = 3.71), time spent charting (OR = 86.09), chart quality (OR = 7.25), and chart accuracy (OR = 4.61) (all P values <.001). Scribes had no effect on patient satisfaction. Scribes increased the proportion of charts that were closed within 48 hours (OR =1.18, P =.028).Conclusions: To our knowledge, we have conducted the first randomized controlled trial of scribes. We found that scribes produced significant improvements in overall physician satisfaction, satisfaction with chart quality and accuracy, and charting efficiency without detracting from patient satisfaction. Scribes appear to be a promising strategy to improve health care efficiency and reduce physician burnout. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]