OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the findings from a questionnaire-based survey of psychiatrists designed to elucidate the positive and negative aspects of group peer review and its perceived place in accountability procedures, and to provide information about how accountability through group peer review might be improved. METHOD: Three hundred and eighty-eight psychiatrists were surveyed via mailout questionnaire. Demographic data, details of groups, and perceptions of beneficial and detrimental effects of group peer review were sought from group participants and non-participants. Attitudes of participants were compared with those of non-participants. Features of groups related to satisfaction in participants were examined. RESULTS: The majority of the 170 respondents participating in groups regarded peer review as a means of maintaining and improving skills, sharing ideas and methods, receiving constructive criticism and feedback, of educational benefit and an important source of professional accountability. Non-participants, while less positive overall, responded equally that participation in peer review groups would be an effective response to accountability procedures. Potential detrimental effects and problems with the functioning of peer review groups were elucidated. CONCLUSIONS: Group peer review contributes significantly to professional accountability and education in well-functioning groups. Further strategies for the facilitation of group functioning and for the processing of problems arising in group peer review need to be developed to optimise its contribution to the maintenance and improvement of professional standards.
OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the findings from a questionnaire-based survey of psychiatrists designed to elucidate the positive and negative aspects of group peer review and its perceived place in accountability procedures, and to provide information about how accountability through group peer review might be improved. METHOD: Three hundred and eighty-eight psychiatrists were surveyed via mailout questionnaire. Demographic data, details of groups, and perceptions of beneficial and detrimental effects of group peer review were sought from group participants and non-participants. Attitudes of participants were compared with those of non-participants. Features of groups related to satisfaction in participants were examined. RESULTS: The majority of the 170 respondents participating in groups regarded peer review as a means of maintaining and improving skills, sharing ideas and methods, receiving constructive criticism and feedback, of educational benefit and an important source of professional accountability. Non-participants, while less positive overall, responded equally that participation in peer review groups would be an effective response to accountability procedures. Potential detrimental effects and problems with the functioning of peer review groups were elucidated. CONCLUSIONS: Group peer review contributes significantly to professional accountability and education in well-functioning groups. Further strategies for the facilitation of group functioning and for the processing of problems arising in group peer review need to be developed to optimise its contribution to the maintenance and improvement of professional standards.