Impact of peer review audit on occupational health report quality.

Abstract

BackgroundIn a previous report, we described the implementation of a formal process for peer review of occupational health (OH) reports and a method of assessment of the outcomes of this process. The initial audit identified that 27% of OH reports required modifications.AimsTo assess formally, following implementation of this process, if changes in practice had occurred, i.e. whether fewer deficiencies were being identified in reports.MethodsWe repeated a prospective internal audit of all peer reviewed OH reports between September and November 2011. We used an abbreviated assessment form, based on questions 4–8 and 10–12 of the modified SAIL (Sheffield Assessment Instrument for Letters), with four possible outcomes: no action, no changes made to report following discussion with author, changes made without discussion with author and changes made following discussion with author.ResultsOne hundred seventy-three reports by 10 clinicians were audited. The audit identified a 13% reduction in OH reports requiring modifications (from 27 to 14%) compared with the previous cycle. Where modifications were required, 8% of these were related to minor typographical, spelling and grammar errors and 6% were for more complex reasons. Implementation of this process also produced a reduction in clinical complaints about OH reports from customers, from three in the preceding year to none 2 years later.ConclusionsPeer review improved the standard of OH reports and was associated with a reduction in customer complaints about reports.