CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 337Primary Care and Health OutcomesClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsClinical practice guidelines implementation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Delayed Feedback of Physician Performance Versus Immediate Reminders to Perform Preventive Care: Effects on Physician Compliance

Tierney, William M., Hui, Siu L., McDonald, Clement J.·1986·Medical Care
DOI 10.1097/00005650-198608000-00001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In an academic general medicine clinic, we performed a randomized, controlled trial to compare (1) the effects of supplying monthly feedback reports of compliance with preventive care protocols by 135 internal medicine house staff with (2) the effects of specific reminders given to them at the time of patient visits. The protocols were randomly divided into two groups, A and B, and half the house staff were given feedback for Group A and half for Group B. Thus, each group served as a control for the other. Each feedback group was also randomly assigned to receive reminders for either Group A or B protocols. House staff receiving feedback more often complied with fecal occult blood testing, mammography, pneumococcal vaccination, use of metronidazole, and combined Group A and B protocols than did controls (P less than 0.01). There was also significantly more compliance with the same protocols by house staff receiving reminders, but the increase for fecal occult blood testing, pneumococcal vaccination, and combined Group A protocols was twice that seen in physicians given feedback alone. In addition, reminders alone increased compliance with oral calcium supplementation. Overall compliance with the preventive care protocols was low: 10-15% in physicians receiving neither feedback nor reminders, increasing to 15-30% in those receiving reminders. Physician compliance with suggested preventive care protocols can be increased by both delayed feedback and immediate reminders, but reminders have a greater effect.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00005650-198608000-00001

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 337

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Tierney, W. M., Hui, S. L., & McDonald, C. J.
Affiliations
Regenstrief Institute (US)
Corresponding author
  • Tierney, William M.
  • McDonald, Clement J.
ORCID
Venue
Medical Care
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
1986-08
Volume
24
Issue
8
Pages
659-666
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/00005650-198608000-00001
OpenAlex
W2006363447
Cited by
337
References
19
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
31.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (HS-04080, HS-04996)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
preventive medicine, physician performance feedback, clinical reminders, fecal occult blood test, mammography, pneumococcal vaccination, metronidazole, oral calcium supplementation, quality improvement
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Computers, Feedback, Hospitals, General, Humans, Indiana, Medical Staff, Hospital, Outpatient Clinics, Hospital, Preventive Health Services, Random Allocation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review