Literature DB >> 27673509

Peer Feedback, Learning, and Improvement: Answering the Call of the Institute of Medicine Report on Diagnostic Error.

David B Larson1, Lane F Donnelly1, Daniel J Podberesky1, Arnold C Merrow1, Richard E Sharpe1, Jonathan B Kruskal1.   

Abstract

In September 2015, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published a report titled "Improving Diagnosis in Health Care," in which it was recommended that "health care organizations should adopt policies and practices that promote a nonpunitive culture that values open discussion and feedback on diagnostic performance." It may seem counterintuitive that a report addressing a highly technical skill such as medical diagnosis would be focused on organizational culture. The wisdom becomes clearer, however, when examined in the light of recent advances in the understanding of human error and individual and organizational performance. The current dominant model for radiologist performance improvement is scoring-based peer review, which reflects a traditional quality assurance approach, derived from manufacturing in the mid-1900s. Far from achieving the goals of the IOM, which are celebrating success, recognizing mistakes as an opportunity to learn, and fostering openness and trust, we have found that scoring-based peer review tends to drive radiologists inward, against each other, and against practice leaders. Modern approaches to quality improvement focus on using and enhancing interpersonal professional relationships to achieve and maintain high levels of individual and organizational performance. In this article, the authors review the recommendations set forth by the recent IOM report, discuss the science and theory that underlie several of those recommendations, and assess how well they fit with the current dominant approach to radiology peer review. The authors also offer an alternative approach to peer review: peer feedback, learning, and improvement (or more succinctly, "peer learning"), which they believe is better aligned with the principles promoted by the IOM. © RSNA, 2016.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27673509     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016161254

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  11 in total

1.  Survey of peer review programs among pediatric radiologists: report from the SPR Quality and Safety Committee.

Authors:  Ramesh S Iyer; David W Swenson; Neil Anand; Einat Blumfield; Tushar Chandra; Govind B Chavhan; Thomas R Goodman; Naeem Khan; Michael M Moore; Thang D Ngo; Christina L Sammet; Raymond W Sze; Chido D Vera; A Luana Stanescu
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2019-03-29

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.  Bias in Neuroradiology Peer Review: Impact of a "Ding" on "Dinging" Others.

Authors:  P Charkhchi; B Wang; B Caffo; D M Yousem
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2018-12-06       Impact factor: 3.825

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

5.  Differences in Outcomes Associated With Individual Radiologists for Emergency Department Patients With Headache Imaged With CT: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 25,596 Patients.

Authors:  Matthew S Davenport; Shokoufeh Khalatbari; Nahid Keshavarzi; Michael Connolly; Keith E Kocher; Suzanne T Chong; Ashok Srinivasan
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2020-02-11       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 6.  Added value of double reading in diagnostic radiology,a systematic review.

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

7.  Association of volume of self-directed versus assigned interpretive work with diagnostic performance of radiologists: an observational study.

Authors:  Shiori Amemiya; Harushi Mori; Hidemasa Takao; Osamu Abe
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 8.  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

Review 9.  The Radiology Virtual Reading Room: During and Beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Authors:  Joseph H Yacoub; Carl E Swanson; Ann K Jay; Cirrelda Cooper; James Spies; Pranay Krishnan
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2021-02-23       Impact factor: 4.056

10.  Telemedicine-based system for quality management and peer review in radiology.

Authors:  Sergey Morozov; Ekaterina Guseva; Natalya Ledikhova; Anton Vladzymyrskyy; Dmitry Safronov
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2018-05-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.