Peer learning is both preferable and less expensive than score-based peer review: Initial experience at a tertiary academic center.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To examine radiologist experiences and perceptions during a transition from score-based peer review to a peer learning program, and to assess differences in time-cost efficiency between the two models of quality improvement. METHODS: Differences in Likert scale survey responses from radiologists (N = 27) in a multispecialty group at a single tertiary academic center before and following intervention were evaluated by Mann-Whitney U test. Multiple variable linear regression analysis assessed independent variables and program preference. RESULTS: All positive impacts rated significantly higher for the peer learning program. Workflow disruption for the peer learning program rated significantly lower. 70.4 % (19 of 27) preferred the new program, and 25.9 % (7 of 27) preferred the old program. Only the "worth investment" questionnaire score demonstrated a significant correlation to program preference and with an effect that was greatest among all variables (Beta = 1.11, p = 0.02). There was a significantly decreased amount of time per month used to complete peer learning exercises (0.76 ± 0.45 h, N = 27) versus peer review exercises (1.71 ± 1.84 h, N = 34, p = 0.011). The result was a difference of 0.95 ± 1.89 h/month (11.4 ± 22.7 h/year), translating to an estimated direct salary time-cost saving of $1653.68/year/radiologists and a direct productivity time-cost saving of $3469.39/year/radiologist when utilizing the peer learning program. CONCLUSIONS: There was a strongly positive perception of the new peer learning program. There was a substantial implied direct time-cost saving from the transition to the peer learning program. PRECIS The peer learning model emphasizes learning from errors via feedback in a non-punitive environment. This model was positively perceived and demonstrated substantial implied direct time-cost saving.