Chart audit and chart stimulated recall as methods of needs assessment in continuing professional health education

Abstract

Abstract:This article describes the chart audit (CA)

Barriers of and Facilitators to Physician Recommendation of Colorectal Cancer Screening

“…29 Three to six chart-stimulated recalls are sufficient to provide reliable and valid assessment of physician performance. [30][31][32] For chart-stimulated recall, 3 to 5 charts from the 10 charts pulled by the physicians were discussed in reverse chronological, sequential order to maximize physician recall of the encounter. If the physician had no recall of the encounter, that chart was excluded.…”

The value of artefacts in stimulated-recall interviews

“…An acknowledged threat to the validity of data gathered in SR is the time delay between the event and the process of recall (Gass & Mackey 2000), though this may be mediated in interviews using Chart Stimulated Recall (Jennett & Affleck 1998, Lyle 2003.…”

“…This is the case whether an audio-visual recording or a document (e.g. patient charts), as is used in ChartStimulated Recall interviews to examine clinical decisions taken with a view to assessing professional competence (Jennett & Affleck 1998, Goulet et al 2007, Salvatori et al 2008. In the SR interview the artefact is examined by the participant, and through researcher-led use of structured recall and probing procedures, participants talk aloud their thinking, decisions and actions described in the artefact (Busse & Borromeo 2003).…”

Revisiting Retrospective Chart Review: An Evaluation of Nursing Home Palliative and End-of-Life Care Research

“…Limitations of the medical chart itself in retrospective studies have been recognized including: inaccurate, incomplete or illegible documentation, as well as variance in the quality and location of the information recorded by medical professionals [4,13,14]. Many limitations of the chart review process have also been recognized and include: missing charts; lack of a clear procedure for data abstraction and how to handle missing or incomplete data; lack of abstractor training or blinding to the study purpose; and inconsistency or mistakes in coding chart information [11,15].…”