December 21, 2009

Peer Review in Radiology (2)

Scoring Language for Peer Review
By the American College of Radiology's RADPEER
  1. Score 1 = concur with interpretation
  2. Score 2 = discrepancy in interpretation/not ordinarily expected to be made (understandable miss)
  3. Score 3 = discrepancy in interpretation/should be made most of the time
  4. 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

Reference:
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.


Follow RiTradiology on FacebookTwitter or Google Friend Connect

No comments:

Post a Comment