Peer Review to Peer Learning in Radiology: Where Have We Been, What Have We Learned and Where Are We Headed?
- 48 Downloads
Purpose of review
To review and contrast varying methods of peer assessment driven practice quality improvement programs in radiology with an emphasis on peer review and peer learning.
Review of the literature revealed that the current consensus is that a shift away from the original peer review system toward a peer learning process has the most beneficial effects for organizations seeking to maximally improve performance. This requires altering perceptions towards the peer review process itself, and significant time, effort, and resources.
The transition to a peer learning process is a necessity to advance the field of radiology into an era of delivering near faultless quality health care.
KeywordsPeer review Peer learning RADPEER Radiology quality Medical errors Quality improvement Radiology informatics
Compliance with Ethical Guidelines
Conflict of interest
Humaira Chaudhry, Omar Jamil, Abdel-Kareem Beidas, and Devashri Shah each declare no potential conflicts of interest. Hani H. Abujudeh is a section editor for Current Radiology Reports.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Recently published papers of particular interest have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 1.Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, editors. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.Google Scholar
- 2.Balogh EP, Miller BT, Ball JR, editors. Board on Health Care Services, Institute of Medicine. Improving diagnosis in health care. Washington, DC: The National Academy of Sciences, The National Academy Press; 2015.Google Scholar
- 4.Berlin L. Radiologic errors: acceptable practice or malpractice. In Pract. 2007;1:5–7.Google Scholar
- 5.Radiology Quality Institute. Diagnostic accuracy in radiology: defining a literature-based benchmark. Beachwood: Radiology Quality Institute; 2012.Google Scholar
- 7.Edwards MT. Peer review: a new tool for quality improvement. Phys Exec. 2009;35:54–9.Google Scholar
- 8.•• Goldberg-Stein S, Frigini LA, Long S, Metwalli Z, Nguyen XV, Parker M., Abujudeh H. ACR RADPEER Committee White Paper with 2016 Updates: Revised scoring system, new classifications, self-review, and subspecialized reports. J Am Coll Radiol 2017;14:1080–6. Latest Whitepaper published by the ACR’s RADPEER Committee.Google Scholar
- 26.Syed M. Black box thinking: why most people never learn from their mistakes—but some do. New York: Portfolio/Penguin; 2015.Google Scholar
- 28.•• Donnelly LF, Larson DB, Heller, RE, Kruskal, JB. Practical suggestions on how to move from peer review to peer learning. AJR 2018;210:578–82. Recent paper published this year that details how to implement a peer learning program.Google Scholar
- 29.• Donnelly, LF, Dorfman, S, Jones J, Bisset, G. Transition From Peer Review to Peer Learning: Experience in a Radiology Department. J Am Coll Radiol 2017; article in press. Recent paper that reviews one departments experience with a peer learning program.Google Scholar
- 30.•• Larson DB, Donnelly LF, Podberesky DJ, Merrow AC, Sharpe RE Jr, Kruskal JB. Peer feedback, learning, and improvement: answering the call of the Institute of Medicine’s report on diagnostic error. Radiology 2017; 283:231–41. Recent paper addressing quality improvement concerns raised by the Institute of Medicine.Google Scholar
- 31.Aguayo R Dr. Deming: The American who taught the Japanese about quality. New York: Simon & Schuster; 1990.Google Scholar