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
  • [31] Conflict(s) of Interest in Peer Review: Its Origins and Possible Solutions
    Oleinik, Anton
    SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS, 2014, 20 (01) : 55 - 75
  • [32] Evaluating the impact of accreditation and external peer review
    Kilsdonk, Melvin
    Siesling, Sabine
    Otter, Renee
    van Harten, Wim
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH CARE QUALITY ASSURANCE, 2015, 28 (08) : 757 - +
  • [33] Implementing peer review at an emergency medicine blog: bridging the gap between educators and clinical experts
    Thoma, Brent
    Chan, Teresa
    Desouza, Natalie
    Lin, Michelle
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2015, 17 (02) : 188 - 191
  • [34] Development of nuclear medicine image quality assessment criteria for use in a technologist peer review program
    Mathews, Jisla
    Grewal, Harinder
    Gillan, Caitlin
    Menezes, Ravi
    Cornacchione, Paul
    Catton, Jennifer
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL IMAGING AND RADIATION SCIENCES, 2021, 52 (01) : 29 - 36
  • [35] The peer review procedure: some thoughts on the analysis and dissemination of good practices in the framework of the European Employment Strategy
    Lefresne, Florence
    TRANSFER-EUROPEAN REVIEW OF LABOUR AND RESEARCH, 2006, 12 (03) : 333 - 348
  • [36] Adapting peer review for the future: Digital disruptions and trust in peer review
    Calamur, Harini
    Ghosh, Roohi
    LEARNED PUBLISHING, 2024, 37 (01) : 49 - 54
  • [37] Peer Review in Urology Journals: What Is the Best Peer Review Model?
    Kaplan-Marans, Elie
    Khurgin, Jacob
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2023, 209 (01) : 14 - 16
  • [38] Editorial: Present and future of peer review and scientific publishing in Law - perspectives from the Brazilian Journal of Criminal Procedure data in 2017 and the views of its authors and reviewers
    de Vasconcellos, Vinicius Gomes
    REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE DIREITO PROCESSUAL PENAL, 2018, 4 (01) : 11 - 23
  • [39] Take peer pressure out of peer review
    Derrick, Gemma
    NATURE, 2018, 554 (7690) : 7 - 7
  • [40] The Peer Review Process
    Willis, L. Denise
    RESPIRATORY CARE, 2024, 69 (04) : 492 - 499