Peer assessment of outpatient consultation letters--feasibility and satisfaction.
BACKGROUND
Written correspondence is one of the most important forms of communication between health care providers, yet there is little feedback provided to specialists. The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility and satisfaction of a peer assessment program on consultation letters and to determine inter-rater reliability between family physicians and specialists.


METHODS
A rating scale of nine 5-point Likert scale items including specific content, style items, education value of the letter and an overall rating was developed from a previous validated tool. Nine Internal Medicine specialists/subspecialists from two tertiary care centres submitted 10 letters with patient and physician identifiers removed. Two Internal Medicine specialists, and 2 family physicians from the other centre rated each letter (to protect writer anonymity). A satisfaction survey was sent to each writer and rater after collation of the results. A follow-up survey was sent 6-8 months later.


RESULTS
There was a high degree of satisfaction with the process and feedback. The rating scale information was felt to be useful and appropriate for evaluating the quality of consultation letters by 6/7 writers. 5/7 seven writers felt that the feedback they received resulted in immediate changes to their letters. Six months later, 6/9 writers indicated they had maintained changes in their letters. Raters rank ordered letters similarly (Cronbach's alpha 0.57-0.84) but mean scores were highly variant. At site 1 there were significant differences in scoring brevity (p < 0.01) between family physician and specialist raters; whereas, at site 2 there were differences in scoring of history (p < 0.01), physical examination (p < 0.01) and educational value (p < 0.01) of the letter.


CONCLUSIONS
Most participants found peer assessment of letters feasible and beneficial and longstanding changes occurred in some individuals. Family physicians and specialists appear to have different expectations on some items. Further studies on reliability and validity, with a larger sample, are required before high stakes professional assessments include consultation letters.
Keely
Erin
E
Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Canada. ekeely@ottawahospital.on.ca
Myers
Kathryn
K
Dojeiji
Suzan
S
Campbell
Craig
C
D000553:Ambulatory Care; D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D015709:Correspondence as Topic; D005240:Feasibility Studies; D006801:Humans; D033183:Interdisciplinary Communication; D008485:Medical Audit; D008511:Medicine; D015588:Observer Variation; D010380:Peer Review; D010865:Pilot Projects; D012017:Referral and Consultation; D013038:Specialization