A cross-sectional survey using electronic distribution of a questionnaire to subscribers of educational material written by clinicians, for clinicians, to evaluate whether practice change resulted from reading the Clinical Communiqué

Abstract

ObjectiveTo explore whether subscribers reported clinical practice changes as a result of reading the Clinical Communiqué (CC). Secondarily, to compare the characteristics of subscribers who self-reported changes to clinical practice with those who did not, and to explore subscribers’ perceptions of the educational value of the CC.Design, setting and participantsOnline cross-sectional survey between 21 July 2015 and 18 August 2015 by subscribers of the CC (response rate=29.9%, 1008/3373), conducted by a team from Monash University, Australia.Main outcome measuresChange in clinical practice as a result of reading the CC.Results53.0% of respondents reported that their practice had changed after reading the CC. Respondents also found that the CC raised awareness (96.5%) and provided ideas about improving patient safety and care (94.1%) leading them to discuss cases with their colleagues (79.6%) and review their practice (75.7%). Multivariate analysis indicated that working in a residential aged care facility (p<0.05) and having taken part in an inquest (p<0.05) were significantly associated with practice change.ConclusionThe design and content of the CC has generated a positive impact on the healthcare community. It is presented in a format that appears to be accessible and acceptable to readers and achieves its goals of promoting safer clinical care through greater awareness of the medico-legal context of practice.

Comparison of acute vertigo diagnosis and treatment practices between otolaryngologists and non-otolaryngologists: A multicenter scenario-based survey

“…Responses to four baseline questions (gender, PGY, the total number of vertigo patients seen in a month, and institutional rules to obtain CT scan prior to brain MRI) in the first section had a p-value <0.25 in bivariate analysis. For the multivariate analysis, we decided to adjust for gender, PGY, and the total number of vertigo patients seen in a month, based on clinical plausibility [10]. There was a large difference in the total number of vertigo patients seen in a month between otolaryngologist and non-otolaryngologist.…”

“…The fifth limitation was regarding the potential confounders. We included study variables based on prior knowledge [10]. However, the possibility of unknown confounders not included in this study should be considered.…”

“…We investigated the associations between physician specialty and diagnostic or treatment option using multiple logistic regression analysis and generalized linear model with a negative binomial distribution and log-link function after covariates. We included variables in the multivariate models based on clinical plausibility and the results of bivariate analysis if an individual p-value was less than 0.25 [10]. A p-value of <0.05 was considered significant.…”

A cross‐sectional multicenter survey on the future of dental education in the era of COVID‐19: Alternatives and implications

“…Nevertheless, our questionnaire was designed to be simple, concise, and precise, taking only about 10 minutes to complete. Previous surveys were referred to for general guidance 21,22 . To encourage the invited faculty members to join the survey, clear statements were used in the email invitations, and the survey link to complete the survey was anonymous and voluntary with the option to leave at any time.…”

Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Nutrition and Dietetics Needs and the Requisite Professional Competencies in Uganda: A Cross-Sectional Mixed Methods Study

“…Demographics, training and occupation characteristics of HN/HND respondents The response rate by HN/HND graduates was 29.3%; higher than that usually obtained for online/email-based surveys [36]. Amongst the HN/HND respondents; more females than males responded to the survey.…”