Abstract
Peer review has been widely employed within the NHS to facilitate health quality improvement but has not been rigorously evaluated. This article reports the largest randomised trial of peer review ever conducted in the UK. The peer review intervention was a reciprocal supportive exercise that included clinicians, hospital management, commissioners and patients which focused on the quality of the provision of four specific evidence-based aspects of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease care. Follow up at 12 months demonstrated few quantitative differences in the number or quality of services offered in the two groups. Qualitative data in contrast suggested many benefits of peer review in most but not all intervention units and some control teams. Findings suggest peer review in this format is a positive experience for most participants but is ineffective in some situations. Its longer term benefits and cost effectiveness require further study. The generic findings of this study have potential implications for the application of peer review throughout the NHS.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
