RATIONALE: Peer review has been widely used within the National Health Service to facilitate health quality improvement but evaluation has been limited particularly over the longer-term. Change within the National Health Service (NHS) can take a prolonged period--1-2 years--to occur. We report here a 3-year evaluation of the largest randomized trial of peer review ever conducted in the UK. AIM: To evaluate whether targeted mutual peer review of respiratory units brings about improvements in services for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) over 3 years. METHODS: 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 COPD care. RESULTS: Follow-up at 36 months demonstrated limited significant quantitative differences in the quality of services offered in the two groups but a strong trend in favour of intervention sites. Qualitative data suggested many benefits of peer review in most but not all intervention units and some control teams. The data identify factors that promote and obstruct change. CONCLUSION: The findings demonstrate significant change in service provision over 3 years in both control and intervention sites with great variability in both groups. The combined quantitative and qualitative findings indicate that targeted mutual peer review is associated with improved quality of care, improvements in service delivery and with changes within departments that promote and are precursors to quality improvement. The generic findings of this study have potential implications for the application of peer review throughout the NHS.
RCT Entities:
RATIONALE: Peer review has been widely used within the National Health Service to facilitate health quality improvement but evaluation has been limited particularly over the longer-term. Change within the National Health Service (NHS) can take a prolonged period--1-2 years--to occur. We report here a 3-year evaluation of the largest randomized trial of peer review ever conducted in the UK. AIM: To evaluate whether targeted mutual peer review of respiratory units brings about improvements in services for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) over 3 years. METHODS: 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 COPD care. RESULTS: Follow-up at 36 months demonstrated limited significant quantitative differences in the quality of services offered in the two groups but a strong trend in favour of intervention sites. Qualitative data suggested many benefits of peer review in most but not all intervention units and some control teams. The data identify factors that promote and obstruct change. CONCLUSION: The findings demonstrate significant change in service provision over 3 years in both control and intervention sites with great variability in both groups. The combined quantitative and qualitative findings indicate that targeted mutual peer review is associated with improved quality of care, improvements in service delivery and with changes within departments that promote and are precursors to quality improvement. The generic findings of this study have potential implications for the application of peer review throughout the NHS.
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