Peer Review Method Research Articles

Book reviews

Book reviewed in this articles: Brief Lives: Living with the Death of a Child by Suzanne Foster & Pamela Smith. Dealing with Drugs: Helping the Problem Drug Taker by Annas Dixon. Emergency Nursing Core Curriculum by Emergency Nurses Association. Primer of Nursing Research by Mary Reardon Castles. Counselling Skills for Nurses, 2nd edn by V. Tschudin. Diseases—Causes and Diagnosis. Current therapy and Nursing Management, 2nd edn. Nurse's Reference Library. The Management of Patient Care, 6th edn. by Thora Kron & Anne Gray. Basic Nursing Theory and Practice by Patricia A. Potter & Anne G. Perry. Nursing Education: Research and Developments, edited by B. Davis. The Nursing Curriculum: Theory and Practice by F. Greaves. Depression by Robert Romanis. People with Mental Handicap. Perspectives on Intellectual Disability by J. Hattersley, G. P. Hosking, D. Morrow & M. Myers. Community Care in Britain: Variations on a Theme by David J. Hunter & Gerald Wistow. In Charge of the Ward, 2nd edn by Arline Matthews. Clinical Implications of Laboratory Tests, 4th edn by S. M. Tilkian, M. B. Conover & A. G. Tilkian. Critical Care Skills edited by K. D. Degroot & M. B. Damato. Introduction to Nursing Concepts edited by Wendy B. Young. Clinical Drug Therapy, Rationales for Nursing Practice 2nd edn by Anne Collins Abrams. Nursing Quality Measurement—Quality Assurance Methods for Peer Review edited by Alan Pearson.

Measurement of output from university research: a case study

A case study to test the feasibility of measuring output from university research has been performed at Chalmers University of Technology based on five categories: graduate degrees awarded, scientific publications, citations, patents, and spin-off companies. These outputs have been subjectively combined into a merit figure and compared to inputs in the form of department budgets and other outputs such as the teaching load. Regression analysis with the budget allocated with a peer review have been made. Cost estimates for the measurement method are presented. The method has also been compared to a peer review method. >

Professional Self-Regulation: Peer Review

Dentistry, in fulfilling its responsibility for self-regulation, has established a highly specific and formalized method of peer review. Its primary purpose is to mediate problems between patients, dentists, and third parties relative to the quality of treatment and appropriateness of care. It is a confidential service provided to the public and profession at no cost and accomplished with the voluntary cooperation of all parties involved. Decisions of peer review committees are advisory in nature but offer an alternative to legal resolution of misunderstandings and problems in patient care. The profession, by continually refining peer review and by educating its members and the public to its function, is providing a unique and valuable service to patients, dentists, and third parties. The objective and consistent application of this self-monitoring process is but one mechanism by which dentistry seeks to serve the public and perpetuate its high standard of care.

Peer Review: One Department’s Experiences

A method of peer review, based on retrospective chart audit and patient care review, is described. This method can help physical therapists fulfill their responsibility of reviewing their services in order to provide optimal care.

Three methods of peer review in a state mental hospital system.

Three methods of peer review were examined in three public mental hospitals. A multidisciplinary committee developed admissions criteria and standards of care which were applied in each hospital. The three methods of review did not show significant differences in judgments based on the clinical records of patients or cost. The recommended model of review is the use of hospital staff providing primary review and consultants providing periodic external review necessary for quality assurance, development of the local review model, and assistance in implementing any changes required as a result of the review process. The system should form a complete feedback loop between service providers, the review committee, and facility administration with the aim of improved patient care through staff education. Psychologists, in addition to their clinical skills, brought to the review process the knowledge of psychological assessment and research skills. The research skills are necessary if the review process is to be systematic and the conclusions drawn from the process are valid. Psychologists should actively pursue involvement in the review process so that psychology will not simply be an adjunct to the assessment phase of treatment and hospitalization.

The role of the academic medical center in the PSRO program

The professional standards review organization (PRSO) program offers both a challenge and an opportunity to the academic medical center. Application by the local PSRO of objective measures of the quality and medical necessity of services challenges the medical center to demonstrate that its self-image of excellence is correct. Educating and training medical students and house staff in methods of self-evaluation and peer review could have a major impact on both the success of the PSRO program and the quality of medical care. Evaluation of the educational programs of the medical center through review of actual practice behavior presents an unparalleled means for improvement in undergraduate, graduate, and continuing medical education.

Health Service Prospects.

Growth of the health industry, greater expectations of health care associated with a raised standard of living, and increased conflict between the desire to foster the free enterprise system and the perceived need to control part, if not all, of the industry are now the concern of the surgeon. He who has accepted rapid change in past decades in the surgical and biomedical tools available in the treatment of his patient must now adjust to a wave of change that will modify the very system of care in which he practices. He is aware that not only will methods of practice, single versus group, change but that methods of financing, increasing regulation, peer or governmental review, and possibly federalization of the system are in the wind. He knows that other countries have faced these issues and adopted new systems of health care, but how can he obtain factual information of

Evaluating the quality of medical care.

In this time of rapidly increasing interest in assessing the quality of medical care, many investigators, including myself, spend much time advocating their favorite method of evaluation. A refreshing and objective analysis of five methods is presented in this issue of the Journal by Brook and Appel in the Special Article, Quality of Care Assessment: Choosing a method for peer review. In this study, the authors have collected data for the assessment of the quality of medical care provided to 296 patients with urinary-tract infection, hypertension or peptic ulcer. The assessment of quality was done by a team of physicians . . .