Document Detail

Focused peer review: the end game of peer review.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  22632671     Owner:  NLM     Status:  In-Data-Review    
PURPOSE: The aim of this report is to describe the authors' experience with expanding the routine peer-review process to include misdiagnoses from all sources and the use of focused peer review (FPR) in faculty accountability and management.
METHODS: A department-wide routine peer review was conducted. Each radiologist was assigned 12 cases per month. In addition, clinically reported errors, missed diagnoses discovered outside the routine peer-review process, were identified. Cases were scored from 1 to 5. The department quality office evaluated cases with scores of 3 and 4 from both sources for further processing with FPR, a multistep continuation of the peer-review process using a tracking document. Once initiated, FPR was processed by seeking comments from the division director and the interpreting radiologist. In some cases, FPR was discontinued before completion. Completed FPR documents were submitted to the department chair for administrative action, ranging from no action to termination. All FPR cases are presented at monthly departmental morbidity and mortality conferences.
RESULTS: Routine peer review was done on 1,646 cases from a total of about 300,000 studies by 31 radiologists. Thirty-five cases from the two sources with scores of 3 and 4 were analyzed, 21 from the routine peer review and 14 clinically reported errors. The quality officer initiated 25 FPRs, rejecting 10 because errors were not considered significant. Further scrutiny lead to dropping 7 of the 12 routine and 2 of the 13 cases with clinically reported error. Sixteen FPRs were completed, 5 (31%) from routine peer review and 11 (69%) from clinically reported errors. For these 16 completed FPRs, management decisions were made by the department chair.
CONCLUSIONS: Processing of routine peer-review data together with cases of clinically reported error strengthens the peer-review process. Focused peer review can effectively contribute to the surveillance and management of faculty performance for improved patient care.
Sarwat Hussain; Jawad S Hussain; Adib Karam; Gopal Vijayaraghavan
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR     Volume:  9     ISSN:  1558-349X     ISO Abbreviation:  J Am Coll Radiol     Publication Date:  2012 Jun 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2012-05-28     Completed Date:  -     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  101190326     Medline TA:  J Am Coll Radiol     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  430-433.e1     Citation Subset:  IM    
Copyright Information:
Copyright © 2012 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
University of Massachusetts Medical School and UMass Memorial Healthcare, Worcester, Massachusetts.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Mobile technology in radiology resident education.
Next Document:  Recognition of Promoter DNA by Subdomain 4.2 of Escherichia Coli ?(70): A Knowledge Based Model of -...