Clinical Peer Review: Burnishing a Tarnished Icon

Abstract

Editorials1 April 1993Clinical Peer Review: Burnishing a Tarnished IconPeter E. Dans, MD, Deputy EditorPeter E. Dans, MD, Deputy EditorSearch for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-118-7-199304010-00014 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Hayward and colleagues, in this issue of Annals, show that implicit criteria, widely used in peer review to assess quality of care, are inadequate. Prescriptions for improving peer review are suggested.Physician groups frequently extol the sanctity of clinical peer review. In this issue of Annals, however, Hayward and colleagues [1] confirm that the way most physicians and review organizations do peer review to assess quality of care is unreliable [2]. Well-trained internists were asked to judge the appropriateness and quality of care on a general medical ward. Raters were taught a structured, implicit criterion approach, in which their perception ...