Literature DB >> 24139321

Consensus-oriented group peer review: a new process to review radiologist work output.

Tarik K Alkasab1, H Benjamin Harvey2, Vrushab Gowda3, James H Thrall4, Daniel I Rosenthal4, G Scott Gazelle5.   

Abstract

The Joint Commission and other regulatory bodies have mandated that health care organizations implement processes for ongoing physician performance review. Software solutions, such as RADPEER™, have been created to meet this need efficiently. However, the authors believe that available systems are not optimally designed to produce changes in practice and overlook many important aspects of quality by excessive focus on diagnosis. The authors present a new model of peer review known as consensus-oriented group review, which is based on group discussion of cases in a conference setting and places greater emphasis on feedback than traditional systems of radiology peer review. By focusing on the process of peer review, consensus-oriented group review is intended to optimize performance improvement and foster group standards of practice. The authors also describe the software tool developed to implement this process of enriched peer review.
Copyright © 2014 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Peer review; information technology; quality improvement; regulatory compliance

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24139321     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2013.04.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol        ISSN: 1546-1440            Impact factor:   5.532


  7 in total

Review 1.  Risk management in radiology departments.

Authors:  Horea Craciun; Kshitij Mankad; Jeremy Lynch
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2015-06-28

Review 2.  Practical considerations when implementing peer learning conferences.

Authors:  Anh-Vu Ngo; A Luana Stanescu; David W Swenson; Michael M Moore; Raymond W Sze; Ramesh S Iyer
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2019-03-29

3.  Implementation and Validation of PACS Integrated Peer Review for Discrepancy Recording of Radiology Reporting.

Authors:  A W Olthof; P M A van Ooijen
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 4.460

4.  Review of learning opportunity rates: correlation with radiologist assignment, patient type and exam priority.

Authors:  Marla B K Sammer; Marcus D Sammer; Lane F Donnelly
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2019-07-17

Review 5.  Added value of double reading in diagnostic radiology,a systematic review.

Authors:  Håkan Geijer; Mats Geijer
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2018-03-28

6.  Analysis of a real time group consensus peer review process in radiation oncology: an evaluation of effectiveness and feasibility.

Authors:  Ashley A Albert; William N Duggar; Rahul P Bhandari; Toms Vengaloor Thomas; Satyaseelan Packianathan; Robert M Allbright; Madhava R Kanakamedala; Divyang Mehta; Chunli Claus Yang; Srinivasan Vijayakumar
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 3.481

Review 7.  Optimizing Professional Practice Evaluation to Enable a Nonpunitive Learning Health System Approach to Peer Review.

Authors:  Christy I Sandborg; Gary E Hartman; Felice Su; Glyn Williams; Beate Teufe; Nina Wixson; David B Larson; Lane F Donnelly
Journal:  Pediatr Qual Saf       Date:  2020-12-28
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.