Improving Practice Guideline Adherence Through Peer Feedback: Impact of an Ambulatory Cardiology Curriculum

Graduate medical trainees must be prepared to practice in a quality-driven system that values adherence to and documentation of evidence-based care. Few validated approaches exist to teach these skills. Our objective was to develop, implement, and evaluate an ambulatory practice improvement curriculum capitalizing on peer feedback aimed at improving cardiology fellow guideline knowledge, adherence, and chart documentation.

Four outpatient topics were reviewed in dedicated 1-hour sessions: stable ischemic heart disease, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and aortic valvular disease. Each session began with peer review, critique, and guideline adherence discussion of deidentified outpatient fellow clinic charts, followed by discussion of clinical guidelines. The open discussion of real clinic notes provided a forum for peer feedback exchange. Before each session and after the final session, participants completed a multiple-choice knowledge assessment and self-assessment of comfort with the guidelines. To evaluate the potential effect on patient care, random clinic chart audits were conducted before and after the curriculum using a chart scoring system.

Although the format is broadly applicable, the specific curriculum content was designed for a cardiology fellowship cohort in a large academic medical center. It was organized and implemented by 2 cardiology fellows under the direction and supervision of program directors. The curriculum was implemented during prescheduled noon conference hours. The intention was to carry forward this ambulatory curriculum in subsequent years and to use the first 4 sessions to study its potential successes and opportunities for improvement.

All 22 general cardiology fellows attended at least two sessions (M = 3.1). Knowledge test scores rose from 52.6% to 73.0% (20.4% increase, p < .001), 95% confidence interval (CI) [13.6%, 27.2%]. Self-reported guidelines knowledge improved by 15.1% (p = .002), 95% CI [6.2%, 24.0%], and self-reported documentation improved by 12.5% (p = .008), 95% CI [3.8%, 21.7%]. Chart audit scores improved by 17.8% (p < .001), 95% CI [10.6%, 25.0%], driven in part by 16.4% improvement in adherence to Class I therapies (p = .001).

A targeted curriculum combining peer chart review, feedback, and guideline discussion was associated with significant improvement in fellows' knowledge and adherence to evidence-based therapies. Peer assessment and group-based education and feedback can be leveraged to improve trainee education and impact patient care.