Literature DB >> 20726448

A randomised trial of peer review: the UK National Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Resources and Outcomes Project.

C M Roberts1, R A Stone, R J Buckingham, N A Pursey, B D W Harrison, D Lowe, J M Potter.   

Abstract

Peer review has been widely employed within the NHS to facilitate health quality improvement but has not been rigorously evaluated. This article reports the largest randomised trial of peer review ever conducted in the UK. The peer review intervention was a reciprocal supportive exercise that included clinicians, hospital management, commissioners and patients which focused on the quality of the provision of four specific evidence-based aspects of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease care. Follow up at 12 months demonstrated few quantitative differences in the number or quality of services offered in the two groups. Qualitative data in contrast suggested many benefits of peer review in most but not all intervention units and some control teams. Findings suggest peer review in this format is a positive experience for most participants but is ineffective in some situations. Its longer term benefits and cost effectiveness require further study. The generic findings of this study have potential implications for the application of peer review throughout the NHS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20726448     DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.10-3-223

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)        ISSN: 1470-2118            Impact factor:   2.659


  7 in total

Review 1.  Self-management interventions including action plans for exacerbations versus usual care in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Authors:  Anke Lenferink; Marjolein Brusse-Keizer; Paul Dlpm van der Valk; Peter A Frith; Marlies Zwerink; Evelyn M Monninkhof; Job van der Palen; Tanja W Effing
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-08-04

Review 2.  Educational interventions for health professionals managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care.

Authors:  Amanda J Cross; Dennis Thomas; Jenifer Liang; Michael J Abramson; Johnson George; Elida Zairina
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2022-05-06

3.  Collaborative working within UK NHS secondary care and across sectors for COPD and the impact of peer review: qualitative findings from the UK National COPD Resources and Outcomes Project.

Authors:  Carol Rivas; Stephen Abbott; Stephanie J C Taylor; Aileen Clarke; C Michael Roberts; Robert Stone; Chris Griffiths
Journal:  Int J Integr Care       Date:  2010-09-29       Impact factor: 5.120

4.  Regional variation in breast cancer treatment in the Netherlands and the role of external peer review: a cohort study comprising 63,516 women.

Authors:  Melvin J Kilsdonk; Boukje Ac van Dijk; Renee Otter; Wim H van Harten; Sabine Siesling
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2014-08-16       Impact factor: 4.430

5.  Two decades of external peer review of cancer care in general hospitals; the Dutch experience.

Authors:  Melvin J Kilsdonk; Sabine Siesling; Rene Otter; Wim H van Harten
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2015-12-29       Impact factor: 4.452

6.  The impact of organisational external peer review on colorectal cancer treatment and survival in the Netherlands.

Authors:  M J Kilsdonk; B A C van Dijk; R Otter; S Siesling; W H van Harten
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2014-01-14       Impact factor: 7.640

7.  Impact of peer-led quality improvement networks on quality of inpatient mental health care: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Lina Aimola; Sarah Jasim; Neeraj Tripathi; Sarah Tucker; Adrian Worrall; Alan Quirk; Mike J Crawford
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2016-09-21       Impact factor: 3.630

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.