首页> 外文期刊>Journal of the American College of Radiology: JACR >Focused peer review: The end game of peer review
【24h】

Focused peer review: The end game of peer review

机译:重点同行评议:同行评议的最终结果

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Purpose: The aim of this report is to describe the authors' experience with expanding the routine peer-review process to include misdiagnoses from all sources and the use of focused peer review (FPR) in faculty accountability and management. Methods: A department-wide routine peer review was conducted. Each radiologist was assigned 12 cases per month. In addition, clinically reported errors, missed diagnoses discovered outside the routine peer-review process, were identified. Cases were scored from 1 to 5. The department quality office evaluated cases with scores of 3 and 4 from both sources for further processing with FPR, a multistep continuation of the peer-review process using a tracking document. Once initiated, FPR was processed by seeking comments from the division director and the interpreting radiologist. In some cases, FPR was discontinued before completion. Completed FPR documents were submitted to the department chair for administrative action, ranging from no action to termination. All FPR cases are presented at monthly departmental morbidity and mortality conferences. Results: Routine peer review was done on 1,646 cases from a total of about 300,000 studies by 31 radiologists. Thirty-five cases from the two sources with scores of 3 and 4 were analyzed, 21 from the routine peer review and 14 clinically reported errors. The quality officer initiated 25 FPRs, rejecting 10 because errors were not considered significant. Further scrutiny lead to dropping 7 of the 12 routine and 2 of the 13 cases with clinically reported error. Sixteen FPRs were completed, 5 (31%) from routine peer review and 11 (69%) from clinically reported errors. For these 16 completed FPRs, management decisions were made by the department chair. Conclusions: Processing of routine peer-review data together with cases of clinically reported error strengthens the peer-review process. Focused peer review can effectively contribute to the surveillance and management of faculty performance for improved patient care.
机译:目的:本报告的目的是描述作者在扩大常规同行评审过程中的经验,以包括来自所有来源的误诊以及在教师问责制和管理中使用重点同行评审(FPR)。方法:进行了全科室的常规同行评审。每个放射线医师每个月被分配12例。此外,还可以识别出临床报告的错误,在常规同行评审过程之外发现的漏诊。案例的评分从1到5。部门质量办公室评估了两个来源的评分分别为3和4的案例,以进行FPR的进一步处理,这是使用跟踪文档进行同行评审过程的多步延续。启动后,通过征求部门主管和放射放射科医师的意见来处理FPR。在某些情况下,FPR在完成之前就已终止。完整的FPR文件已提交给部门主席以采取行政行动,涉及范围从无行动到终止。所有FPR病例都在每月的部门发病率和死亡率会议上介绍。结果:31名放射科医师对大约300,000项研究进行了1,646例例行常规同行评审。分析了来自两个来源的3例,得分分别为3和4,其中21例来自常规同行评审,14例临床报道的错误。质量官发起了25个FPR,拒绝了10个FPR,因为认为错误并不重要。进一步的检查导致12例例行检查中的7例和13例中有2例因临床报告的错误而下降。完成了16个FPR,其中5个(31%)来自常规同行评审,11个(69%)来自临床报告的错误。对于这16个已完成的FPR,部门主席做出了管理决策。结论:处理常规的同行评审数据以及临床报告的错误病例可加强同行评审的过程。重点突出的同行评审可以有效地促进对教师绩效的监视和管理,以改善患者护理。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号