Still working to recover. Please don't edit quite yet.

Medical peer review

From Anarchopedia
Revision as of 02:30, 19 October 2014 by 94.153.10.167 (Talk) (PRNwPuiZL)

Jump to: navigation, search
This article contains content from Wikipedia
An article on this subject has been nominated for deletion on Wikipedia:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/
Medical peer review
Current versions of the GNU FDL article on WP may contain information useful to the improvement of this article 		WP+
NO
DEL

Medical peer review is the process by which a committee of physicians examines the work of a peer and determines whether the physician under review has met accepted standards of care in rendering medical services. Depending on the specific institution, a medical peer review may be initiated at the request of a Wikipedia:patient, a Wikipedia:physician, or an insurance carrier. The term "peer review" is sometimes used synonymously with Wikipedia:performance appraisal.

The first documented description of a peer review (WP) process is found in the Ethics of the Physician written by Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi (854–931) of al-Raha, Wikipedia:Syria, who describes the first medical peer review process. His work, as well as later Arabic medical manuals, states that a visiting physician must always make duplicate notes of a patient's condition on every visit. When the patient was cured or had died, the notes of the physician were examined by a local medical council of other physicians, who would Wikipedia:review the practising physician's notes to decide whether his or her performance met the required standards of medical care. If their reviews were negative, the practicing physician could face a Wikipedia:lawsuit from a maltreated patient.[1]

The definition of a peer review body can be broad, including not only individuals but also (for example, in Oregon (WP)), "tissue committees, governing bodies or committees including medical staff committees of a [licensed] health care facility...or any other medical group in connection with bona fide medical research, quality assurance, utilization review, credentialing, education, training, supervision or discipline of physicians or other health care providers."[2]


Overview

The objective of a medical peer review committee is to investigate the medical care rendered in order to determine whether accepted standards of care have been met. The professional or personal conduct of a physician or other healthcare professional may also be investigated. If a medical peer review committee finds that a physician has departed from accepted standards, it may recommend limiting or terminating the physician's privileges at an institution. Remedial measures including education may also be recommended.

In Nursing, as in other professions, peer review applies professional control to practice, and is used by professionals to hold themselves accountable for their services to the public and the organization. Peer review plays a role in affecting the quality of outcomes, fostering practice development, and maintaining professional autonomy. The American Nurses Association guidelines on peer review define peer review as the process by which practitioners of the same rank, profession, or setting critically appraise each other’s work performance against established standards. Professionals, who are best acquainted with the requirements and demands of the role, are the givers and receivers of the feedback review.

The medical peer review system is a Wikipedia:quasi-judicial one, similar in some ways to the Wikipedia:grand jury / petit jury system. First, a plaintiff asks for an investigation. Discretionary appointments of staff members are made by the medical Chief of Staff to create an ad hoc committee, which then conducts an investigation in the manner it feels is appropriate. There is no standard for due process, impartiality, or information sources; the review may consult the literature or an outside expert.

An indicted (and sanctioned) physician may have the right to request a hearing, with Wikipedia:counsel allowed. A second panel of physicians is chosen as the 'petit jury', and a hearing officer is chosen. The accused physician has the option to demonstrate conflicts of interest and attempt to disqualify jurors based on reasonable suspicions of bias or conflicts of interest in a process akin to Wikipedia:voir dire.

The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-41) created Patient Safety Organizations, whose participants are immune from prosecution in civil, criminal, and administrative hearings,[3] in order to act in parallel with peer review boards, using Wikipedia:root cause analysis and evaluation of "near misses" in systems failure analysis.

History

See Wikipedia:Quality improvement, Wikipedia:Clinical audit, Wikipedia:Clinical peer review

Medical audit, which remains the predominant mode of peer review in Europe, is a focused study of the process and/or outcomes of care for a specified patient cohort using pre-defined criteria, focused on a diagnosis, procedure or clinical situation.[4][5] This audit process was revised by changes to The Joint Commission standards were revised in 1979, dispensing with the audit requirement and calling for an organized system of Quality Assurance (QA). Thus the objective of a medical peer review committee became, to investigate the medical care rendered in order to determine whether accepted standards of care have been met. Contemporaneous with this change, hospitals and physicians adopted generic screening to improve quality of care, despite warnings from the developers of these screens that they were not validated for this purpose, having originally been developed to evaluate no-fault malpractice insurance plans.[6]

The focus on the question of whether or not the standard of care had been met persisted despite many criticisms,[7][8][9][10] but is increasingly recognized to be outdated, replaced over the past decade by Quality Improvement (QI) principles.[9][10] 


ambien drug sheet - ambien cr urinary retention

Abuse

Main article: Wikipedia:Sham peer review

Sham peer review is a name given to the abuse of a Wikipedia:medical peer review process to attack a doctor for personal or other non-medical reasons.[11]

Controversy exists over whether medical peer review has been used as a competitive weapon in turf wars among physicians, hospitals, HMOs, and other entities. The Wikipedia:American Medical Association conducted an investigation of medical peer review in 2007 and concluded that while it is easy to allege misconduct, proven cases of malicious peer review are rare.[12]

Abuse is also referred to as "malicious peer review" by those who consider it endemic, and they allege that the creation of the National Practitioner Data Bank under the 1986 Wikipedia:Healthcare Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) facilitates such abuse, creating a 'third-rail' or a 'first-strike' mentality by granting significant immunity from liability to doctors and others who participate in peer reviews.

The California legislature framed its statutes so as to allow that a peer review can be found in court to have been improper due to bad faith or malice, in which case the peer reviewers' immunities from civil liability "fall by the wayside".[13]

Many medical staff laws specify guidelines for the timeliness of peer review, in compliance with Wikipedia:JCAHO standards.

Some physicians allege that sham peer review is routinely conducted in retaliation for Wikipedia:whistleblowing, although a study of the phenomenon did not support this charge.

Cases of alleged sham peer review include Khajavi v. Feather River Anesthesiology Medical Group,[14][15][12] Mileikowsky v. Tenet,[16][17][18] and Roland Chalifoux.[19][20]

Defenders of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act state that the National Practitioner Data Bank protects patients by helping preventing errant physicians who have lost their privileges in one state from traveling to practice in another state. Physicians who allege they have been affected by sham peer review are also less able to find work when they move to another state, as Roland Chalifoux did.[20] Moreover, neither opponents or supporters of the NPDB can be completely satisfied, as Chalifoux' case shows that just as physicians who were unjustly accused may be deprived of work in this way, those who have erred might still find work in other states.


Further reading


See also

References

  1. ↑ Ray Spier (2002), "The history of the peer-review process", Trends in Biotechnology 20 (8), p. 357-358 [357].
  2. ↑ JCAHO Periodic Performance Review.
  3. ↑ William E. Fassett, PhD (2006). "Patient Safety Organizations". Ann Pharmacother. 40(5):917-924 Cincinnati, OH. Retrieved on 2007-06-10.
  4. ↑ Shaw CD. Aspects of audit in British hospitals. BMJ 1980 (May31):1314-1316.
  5. ↑ Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristofferen DT, O’Brien MA, Oxman AD. Does telling people what they have been doing change what they do? A systematic review of the effects of audit and feedback. Quality and Safety in Health Care 2006;15:433-436.
  6. ↑ Sanazaro PJ, Mills DH. A critique of the use of generic screening in quality assessment. JAMA. 1991;265(15):1977-1981.
  7. ↑ Dans P.E., Clinical peer review: burnishing a tarnished image. Annals of Internal Medicine 1993;118(7):566-568.
  8. ↑ Goldman RL. The reliability of peer assessments: A meta-analysis. Evaluation and the Health Professions 1994;17(1):3-21.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Berwick DM. Peer review and quality management: are they compatible? Quality Review Bulletin 1990;16(7):246-51.
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Edwards MT. Peer review: a new tool for quality improvement. The Physician Executive Journal of Medical Management 2009;35(5):54-59. reprint requests
  11. ↑ Roland Chalifoux, Jr (2005). So What Is a Sham Peer Review?, p. 47.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 "Inappropriate Peer Review. Report of the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association."
  13. ↑ Greg Abrams, Esq.. Attacking Bad Faith Peer Review: Is It a SLAPP?. California law allows "aggrieved physicians the opportunity to prove that the peer review to which they were subject was in fact carried out for improper purposes, i.e., for purposes unrelated to assuring quality care or patient safety".
  14. ↑ Arnold MS (2000). "Employment: Physician Not Protected From Termination For Advocating Medically Appropriate Health Care"—Khajavi v. Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group, 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 627 (Cal. App. 3d 2000).
  15. ↑ California Appeals Court (October 10, 2000). Khajavi v. Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group, Inc..
  16. ↑ Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (April 18, 2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 531, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 171.
  17. ↑ Health Policy in the Courts -- California Medical Association's participation in Amicus Curiae Briefs - January 2007. (PDF) California Medical Association.
  18. ↑ Mileikowsky v. West Hills Hosp. and Medical Center (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1259, 203 P.3d 1113, 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 516.
  19. ↑ Horvit M and Jarviss J, "Board revokes doctor's license," Fort Worth Star-Telegram (TX), 12 June 2004, p.1B
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Mitchell M, "Former Texas neurosurgeon granted licenses in West Virginia," Fort Worth Star-Telegram (TX), 7 July 2005

Retrieved from "http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php?title=Medical_peer_review&oldid=57561"