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 Facebook, Twitter or Google Friend Connect