The peer review procedure and its place in medicine

被引:8
作者
Chop, Ines [1 ]
Eberlein-Gonska, Maria [2 ]
机构
[1] Bundesarztekammer, Dezernat Qualitatssicherung 3, Berlin, Germany
[2] Tech Univ Dresden, Zent Bereich Qualitats & Med Risikomanagement, Univ Klinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany
来源
ZEITSCHRIFT FUR EVIDENZ FORTBILDUNG UND QUALITAET IM GESUNDHEITSWESEN | 2012年 / 106卷 / 08期
关键词
peer review; self-reflection; expert discussion; quality improvement; curriculum medical peer review;
D O I
10.1016/j.zefq.2012.08.017
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Peer Review literally meaning "re-inspection by a peer'' is a special form of external evaluation whose roots go back to Ancient Greece and which is widely employed in science to assess manuscripts submitted for publication. In the medical context the Peer Review process is defined as structured critical self-reflection through dialogue with colleagues. Its prime objective is to improve the quality of patient care by identifying potentials for improvement and by deriving an action plan. Amongst other things, this includes medical standards and guidelines, indications and their traceability, the monitoring of the treatment process as well as the interdisciplinary cooperation and teamwork between different professional groups. The Peer Review practice in Germany has received strong impetus from comprehensive hospital operator projects like IQM, the "Initiative Qualitatsmedizin'', and the Peer Review practice in intensive care. This practice, which has primarily been developed by practitioners for practitioners of their own accord, offers the chance to integrate medical quality with little bureaucratic effort and direct transfer of knowledge back into daily clinical work. Another important approach to promote peer reviewer qualifications is the curriculum "Medical Peer Review'', which has been published by the German Medical Association since 2011.
引用
收藏
页码:547 / 552
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The Ontology of the Scholarly Journal and the Place of Peer Review
    Wheeler, Bonnie
    JOURNAL OF SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING, 2011, 42 (03) : 307 - 322
  • [2] Peer review practicalities in clinical medicine
    Metcalfe, Matthew
    Farrant, M.
    Farrant, J.
    ADVANCES IN MEDICAL EDUCATION AND PRACTICE, 2010, 1 : 49 - 52
  • [3] Peer review and its ethical implications
    Margaron, Franklin C.
    McEvoy, Christian S.
    Toncray, Kristina A.
    Javid, Patrick J.
    SEMINARS IN PEDIATRIC SURGERY, 2021, 30 (05)
  • [4] Peer Review and Its Theoretical Support
    Yu, Qiuying
    Liu, Jinli
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2017 NORTHEAST ASIA INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON LINGUSTICS, LITERATURE AND TEACHING (NALLTS), VOLS A-C, 2017, : 149 - 155
  • [5] Blockchain Based Peer-Review Interfaces for Digital Medicine
    Dhillon, Vikram
    FRONTIERS IN BLOCKCHAIN, 2020, 3
  • [6] Vexatious complaints and sham peer review; medicine in the times of capitalism
    Alvi, Nouman I.
    ANAESTHESIA PAIN & INTENSIVE CARE, 2016, 20 (02) : 123 - 126
  • [7] A NOVEL PROGRAM TO IMPROVE PATIENT SAFETY BY INTEGRATING PEER REVIEW INTO THE EMERGENCY MEDICINE RESIDENCY CURRICULUM
    Strayer, Reuben J.
    Shy, Bradley D.
    Shearer, Peter L.
    JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2014, 47 (06) : 696 - U200
  • [8] Developing a procedure for learning and assessing peer review in a forensic science programme
    Hamnett, Hilary J.
    McKie, Amanda E.
    ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2019, 44 (05) : 787 - 798
  • [9] Reliability of Peer Review of Abstracts Submitted to Academic Family Medicine Meetings
    Fenton, Joshua J.
    Tapp, Hazel
    Thakur, Netra M.
    Pfeifle, Andrea L.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN BOARD OF FAMILY MEDICINE, 2020, 33 (06) : 986 - 991
  • [10] The peer review process in intensive care medicine - Current status in Germany
    Bause, Hw.
    Braun, J.
    Martin, J.
    Schleppers, A.
    ANASTHESIOLOGIE & INTENSIVMEDIZIN, 2012, 53 : 169 - 175