Academic Medical Center, Department of General Practice, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Med Teach. 2012;34(8):e582-8. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.670322. Epub 2012 Apr 11.
It has been reported that appraisal by peers can be effective.
To investigate whether feedback from a peer group (PG) compared to that by a staff member during a practice visit (PV) is as effective in improving the quality of action plans.
Seventy-three general practitioner (GP) trainers randomized into either a PG or PV were instructed to draw up action plans using the SMART criteria to realize the goals set in their personal development plans (PDPs). To improve action plans, feedback was given in either PG or PV. Quality of baseline and follow-up action plans, operationalized as the SMARTness with which plans were formulated, was assessed using a study-specific instrument.
Response rate for submitting both baseline and follow-up action plans was 89% in the PG versus 79% in the PV. It was feasible to determine scores on all SMART criteria, except for the criterion 'Acceptability'. Significant improvement was made on the remaining four criteria irrespective of the feedback setting.
PGs cost less and seem equally effective in improving the SMARTness of the action plans. Moreover, they also seem to stimulate GP trainers more to write a PDP. Therefore, they may be favoured over PVs.
已有研究表明，同行评议可能具有一定效果。
研究相较于工作人员提供的实践访问反馈，同伴组（PG）的反馈在改善行动计划质量方面是否同样有效。
73 名全科医生（GP）培训师被随机分配到 PG 或 PV 组，他们被要求使用 SMART 标准制定行动计划，以实现个人发展计划（PDP）中设定的目标。为了改进行动计划，在 PG 或 PV 中提供反馈。使用特定于研究的工具，根据计划制定的 SMART 程度，评估基线和随访行动计划的质量。
PG 组提交基线和随访行动计划的回复率为 89%，而 PV 组为 79%。除了“可接受性”标准外，所有 SMART 标准的评分都可以确定。无论反馈设置如何，所有剩余四个标准都有显著改善。
PG 的成本更低，在提高行动计划的 SMART 程度方面同样有效。此外，它们似乎还能更有效地激发 GP 培训师撰写 PDP。因此，它们可能比 PV 更受欢迎。
