Literature DB >> 35935928

Is There a Relationship Between Facility Peer Review Findings and Quality in the Veterans Health Administration?

Kathryn M Ryder1, Megan K Carey2, Yuri N Walker2, Ronald I Shorr3,4.   

Abstract

Background: The aim of clinical peer review (PR) is to improve facility health care quality. However, prior authors have shown that PR may be biased, have rater reliability concerns, or be used for punitive reasons. It is important to determine whether facility PR processes are related to objective facility quality of care.
Methods: We collected proportion of PR findings that "most experienced and competent clinicians may have managed the case differently" or "most experienced and competent clinicians would have managed the case differently" as an objective measure of facility PR processes and outcomes. We correlated these with facility quality metrics for 2019.
Results: PR findings were not associated with facility quality metrics but were strongly associated with previous year findings. Conclusions: This study describes a potentially new source of bias in PR and demonstrates that objective facility outcomes are not related to individual PR findings.
Copyright © 2022 Frontline Medical Communications Inc., Parsippany, NJ, USA.

Entities:  

Year:  2022        PMID: 35935928      PMCID: PMC9351737          DOI: 10.12788/fp.0268

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fed Pract        ISSN: 1078-4497


  13 in total

Review 1.  Effect of outcome on physician judgments of appropriateness of care.

Authors:  R A Caplan; K L Posner; F W Cheney
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1991-04-17       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  The objective impact of clinical peer review on hospital quality and safety.

Authors:  Marc T Edwards
Journal:  Am J Med Qual       Date:  2010-12-15       Impact factor: 1.852

3.  Peer review and quality management: are they compatible?

Authors:  D M Berwick
Journal:  QRB Qual Rev Bull       Date:  1990-07

Review 4.  The reliability of peer assessments of quality of care.

Authors:  R L Goldman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1992-02-19       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Random Versus Nonrandom Peer Review: A Case for More Meaningful Peer Review.

Authors:  Jason N Itri; Adam Donithan; Sohil H Patel
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2018-05-25       Impact factor: 5.532

6.  Just Culture: Practical Implementation for Radiologist Peer Review.

Authors:  Judah Burns; Todd Miller; Jeffrey M Weiss; Amichai Erdfarb; David Silber; Shlomit Goldberg-Stein
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2018-12-22       Impact factor: 5.532

7.  An Assessment of the Impact of Just Culture on Quality and Safety in US Hospitals.

Authors:  Marc T Edwards
Journal:  Am J Med Qual       Date:  2018-04-16       Impact factor: 1.852

8.  Clinical peer review: burnishing a tarnished icon.

Authors:  P E Dans
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1993-04-01       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  In pursuit of quality and safety: an 8-year study of clinical peer review best practices in US hospitals.

Authors:  Marc T Edwards
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 2.038

10.  Institution of Just Culture Physician Peer Review in an Academic Medical Center.

Authors:  Judith K Volkar; Paul Phrampus; Dennis English; Ronald Johnson; Ashley Medeiros; Mark Zacharia; Richard Beigi
Journal:  J Patient Saf       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 2.844

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.