Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Peer Review to Peer Learning in Radiology: Where Have We Been, What Have We Learned and Where Are We Headed?

  • Quality and Safety (H Abujudeh, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Radiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

Recent findings

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.

Summary

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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 

  3. Siegle R, Baram E, Reuter S, Clarke E, Lancaster J, McMahan A. Rates of disagreement in imaging interpretation in a group of community hospitals. Acad Radiol. 1998;5:148–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  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 

  6. Halstead MJ. Radiology PEER review as an opportunity to reduce errors and improve patient care. J Am Coll Radiol. 2004;1:984–7.

    Article  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.

  9. Borgstede J, Lewis R, Bhargavan M, Sunshine J. RADPEER quality assurance program: a multifacility study of interpretive disagreement rates. J Am Coll Radiol. 2004;1:59–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Larson PA, Pyatt RS Jr, Grimers CK, Abudujeh HH, Chin KW, Roth CJ. Getting the most out of RADPEERTM. J Am Coll Radiol. 2011;8:543–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Abujudeh H, Pyatt RS Jr, Bruno MA, et al. RADPEER PEER review: relevance, use, concerns, challenges, and direction forward. J Am Coll Radiol. 2014;11:899–904.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Steele J. The role of RADPEER in the Joint Commission ongoing practice performance evaluation. J Am Coll Radiol. 2011;8:6–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jackson VP, Cushing T, Abujudeh HH, Borgstede JP, Chin KW, Grimes CK, et al. RADPEERTM scoring white paper. J Am Coll Radiol. 2009;6:21–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Eisenberg RL, Cunningham ML, Siewert B, Kruskal JB. Survey of faculty perceptions regarding a peer review system. J Am Coll Radiol. 2014;11:397–401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bender LC, Linnau KF, Meier EN, Anzai Y, Gunn ML. Interrater agreement in the evaluation of discrepant imaging findings with the Radpeer system. Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:1320–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Soffa DJ, Lewis RS, Sunshine JH, Bhargavan M. Disagreement in interpretation: a method for the development of benchmarks for quality assurance in imaging. J Am Coll Radiol. 2004;1:212–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Abujudeh HH, Boland GW, Kaewlai R, Rabiner P, Halpern EF, Gazelle GS, Thrall JH. Abdominal and pelvic computed tomography (CT) interpretation: discrepancy rates among experienced radiologists. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:1952–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Alkasab TK, Harvey HB, Gowda V, Thrall JH, Rosenthal DI, Gazelle GS. Consensus-oriented group peer review: a new process to review radiologist work output. J Am Coll Radiol. 2014;11:131–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Harvey HB, Alkasab TK, Prabhakar AM, et al. Radiologist peer review by group consensus. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016;13:656–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee JK. Quality—a radiology imperative: interpretation accuracy and pertinence. J Am Coll Radiol. 2007;4:162–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Loreto M, Kahn D, Glanc P. Survey of radiologist attitudes and perceptions regarding the incorporation of a departmental PEER review system. J Am Coll Radiol. 2014;11:1034–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Grenville J, Doucette-Preville D, Vlachou P, Mnatzakanian G, Raikhlin A, Collack E. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016;13:217–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mahgerefteh S, Kruskal JB, Yam CS, Blachar A, Sosna J. Peer review in diagnostic radiology: current state and a vision for the future. RadioGraphics. 2009;29:1221–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bal G, Sellier E, Tchouda SD, Francois P. Improving quality of care and patient safety through morbidity and mortality conferences. J Healthc Qual. 2014;36(1):29–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kauffmann RM, Landman MP, Shelton J, Dmochowski RR, Bledsoe SH, Hickson GB, Beauchamp RD, Dattilo JB. The use of multi-disciplinary morbidity and mortality conference to incorporate ACGME competencies. J Surg Educ. 2011;68(4):303–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  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 

  27. Larson DB, Nance JJ. Rethinking peer review: what aviation can teach radiology about performance improvement. Radiology. 2011;259:626–32.

    Article  PubMed  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.

  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.

  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.

  31. Aguayo R Dr. Deming: The American who taught the Japanese about quality. New York: Simon & Schuster; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error—the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ. 2016;353:i2139.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Rutgers-New Jersey Medical School, 185 South Orange Ave., MSB F-506, Newark, NJ, 07103, USA

    Humaira Chaudhry, Omar Jamil, Abdel-Kareem Beidas, Devashri Shah & Hani H. Abujudeh

Authors
  1. Humaira Chaudhry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Omar Jamil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Abdel-Kareem Beidas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Devashri Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hani H. Abujudeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Humaira Chaudhry.

Ethics declarations

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.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical collection on Quality and Safety.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chaudhry, H., Jamil, O., Beidas, AK. et al. Peer Review to Peer Learning in Radiology: Where Have We Been, What Have We Learned and Where Are We Headed?. Curr Radiol Rep 6, 31 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-018-0292-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-018-0292-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation