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
  • [41] GUIDE FOR A PEER REVIEW
    Torres-Guzman, J. C.
    Viliesid-Alonso, M.
    Becerra-Santiago, L. O.
    Arias-Romero, R.
    XIX IMEKO WORLD CONGRESS: FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED METROLOGY, PROCEEDINGS, 2009, : 1209 - 1212
  • [42] Peer Review Anxiety
    Gaumer, Dale
    IEEE SOFTWARE, 2013, 30 (06) : 11 - 13
  • [43] Scientometrics of peer review
    Squazzoni, Flaminio
    Brezis, Elise
    Marusic, Ana
    SCIENTOMETRICS, 2017, 113 (01) : 501 - 502
  • [44] Peer Review for Residents
    Malini Patel
    Daniel W. Hardy
    Ravi Chand
    Academic Psychiatry, 2005, 29 : 490 - 494
  • [45] Peer review for residents
    Patel, M
    Hardy, DW
    Chand, R
    ACADEMIC PSYCHIATRY, 2005, 29 (05) : 490 - 494
  • [46] Peer review and innovation
    Spier, RE
    SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS, 2002, 8 (01) : 99 - 108
  • [47] Peer review of manuscripts
    Ludbrook, J
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2002, 9 (02) : 105 - 108
  • [48] PEER-REVIEW
    FELTON, G
    SWANSON, EA
    JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL NURSING, 1995, 11 (01) : 16 - 23
  • [49] The Dedisciplining of Peer Review
    Frodeman, Robert
    Briggle, Adam
    MINERVA, 2012, 50 (01) : 3 - 19
  • [50] Open Peer Review
    Ferguson, Christine L.
    SERIALS REVIEW, 2020, 46 (04) : 286 - 291