Clinical Peer Review Program Self-Evaluation for US Hospitals

Abstract

Prior research has shown wide variation in clinical peer review program structure, process, governance, and perceived effectiveness. This study sought to validate the utility of a Peer Review Program Self-Evaluation Tool as a potential guide to physician and hospital leaders seeking greater program value. Data from 330 hospitals show that the total score from the self-evaluation tool is strongly associated with perceived quality impact. Organizational culture also plays a significant role. When controlling for these factors, there was no evidence of benefit from a multispecialty review process. Physicians do not generally use reliable methods to measure clinical performance. A high rate of change since 2007 has not produced much improvement. The Peer Review Program Self-Evaluation Tool reliably differentiates hospitals along a continuum of perceived program performance. The full potential of peer review as a process to improve the quality and safety of care has yet to be realized.

Keywords

peer review performance measurement quality patient safety quality improvement hospitals

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Vitez TS A model for quality assurance in anesthesiology. J Clin Anesth . 1990;2:280-287.

Graber ML Physician participation in quality management: expanding the goals of peer review to detect both practitioner and system error. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1999;25:396-407.

Olcott C. IV , Mitchell RS , Steinberg GK , Zarins CK Institutional peer review can reduce the risk and cost of carotid endarterectomy. Arch Surg. 2000;135:939-942.

Antonacci AC , Lam A. , Lavarias V. , Homel P. , Eavey RA A report card system using error profile analysis and concurrent morbidity and mortality review: surgical outcome analysis, part II. J Surg Res. 2009;153:95-104.

Edwards MT , Benjamin EM The process of peer review in US hospitals. J Clin Outcomes Manag. 2009;16:461-467.

Edwards MT Peer review: a new tool for quality improvement. Physician Exec. 2009;35:54-59.

Shrout PE , Fleiss JL Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:420-428.

Edwards MT Measuring clinical performance. Physician Exec. 2009;35:40-43.

Rubin HR , Rubenstein LV , Kahn KL , Sherwood M. Guidelines for Structured Implicit Review of Diverse Medical and Surgical Conditions. Santa Monica, CA: RAND; 1990.

10.

Vaughn T. , Koepke M. , Kroch E. , Lehrman W. , Sinha S. , Levey S. Engagement of leadership in quality improvement initiatives: executive quality improvement survey results. J Patient Saf. 2006;2:2-9.

11.

Kroch E. , Vaughn T. , Keopke M. , et al. Hospital boards and quality dashboards. J Patient Saf. 2006;2:10-19.

12.

Kotter JP , Heskett JL Corporate Culture and Performance. New York, NY: Free Press; 1992.

13.

Senge PM The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York, NY: Doubleday; 2006.

14.

Gregory BT , Harris SG , Armenakis AA , Shook CL Organizational culture and effectiveness: a study of values, attitudes, and organizational outcomes. J Bus Res. 2009;62: 673-679.

15.

Agee C. Professional review committee improves the peer review process. Physician Exec. 2007;33:52-55.

16.

Wachter RM , Pronovost PJ Balancing "no blame" with accountability in patient safety. N Engl J Med. 2009;361: 1401-1406.

17.

Streiner DL , Norman GR Health Measurement Scales : A Practical Guide to their Development and Use. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2003.