Scoring Language for Peer Review
By the American College of Radiology's RADPEER
- Score 1 = concur with interpretation
- Score 2 = discrepancy in interpretation/not ordinarily expected to be made (understandable miss)
- Score 3 = discrepancy in interpretation/should be made most of the time
- Score 4 = discrepancy in interpretation/should be made almost every time - misinterpretation of finding
How These Could Be Utilized?
- For individual radiologists: maintenance of certification, ongoing quality improvement in diagnostic accuracy, opportunity for education
- For institution: monitoring of radiologist performance as an individual and a group, tracking data over time, monitoring trends, conforming with requirements of several controlling agencies
Ideal Peer Review
- Reveals opportunity for quality improvement
- Ensures radiologist competence
- Improves individual radiologist outcome
- Should be unbiased, fair, balanced, timely, ongoing and nonpunitive
- Should allow easy participation
- Should have minimal effect on work flow
The most popular system in use at present is the American College eRADPEER
Mahgerefteh S, Kruskal JB, Yam CS, et al. Peer review in diagnostic radiology: current state and a vision for the future. Radiographics 2009;29:1221-1231.
2. Jackson VP, Cushing T, Abujudeh HH, et al. RADPEER scoring white paper. J Am Coll Radiol 2009;6:21-25.