Peer review of medical practices: missed opportunities to learn

被引:5
作者
Kadar, Nicholas
机构
关键词
medical errors; peer review of medical practice; persons approach; systems approach; ADVERSE EVENTS; RELIABILITY; QUALITY; ERROR; CARE; ASSESSMENTS; MANAGEMENT; JUDGMENT; MODELS; SYSTEM;
D O I
10.1016/j.ajog.2014.08.018
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Appropriately conducted peer review of medical practices provides the greatest opportunity for health care professionals to learn from their mistakes and improve the quality and safety of health care. But in practice, peer review has not been an effective learning tool because it is subjective and irreproducible. Physicians reviewing the same cases disagree over the cause(s) of adverse outcomes and the quality and appropriateness of care, and agreement is not improved by training, use of objective review criteria, or having the reviewers discuss the cases. The underlying reason is a general lack of understanding and an oversimplified view of the causes of medical errors in complex, high-risk organization and a preoccupation with attributing medical errors to particular individuals. This approach leads to judgments, not understanding, and creates a culture of blame that stops learning and undermines the potential for improvement. For peer review to have an impact on the quality of care and patient safety, it must be standardized to remove cognitive biases and subjectivity from the process.
引用
收藏
页码:596 / 601
页数:6
相关论文
共 35 条
[1]  
Bacon F., 1620, Novum Organum
[2]   CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AS AN IDEAL IN HEALTH-CARE [J].
BERWICK, DM .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1989, 320 (01) :53-56
[3]   Mental models and counterfactual thoughts about what might have been [J].
Byrne, RMJ .
TRENDS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCES, 2002, 6 (10) :426-431
[4]  
Croskerry P, 2002, ACAD EMERG MED, V9, P1184, DOI 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2002.tb01574.x
[6]  
Evans J, 1996, RATIONALITY REASONIN, P31
[7]   Intuition and Reasoning: A Dual-Process Perspective [J].
Evans, Jonathan St. B. T. .
PSYCHOLOGICAL INQUIRY, 2010, 21 (04) :313-326
[8]   THE EXPERT WITNESS - REAL ISSUES AND SUGGESTIONS [J].
FISHER, CW ;
DOMBROWSKI, MP ;
JASZCZAK, SE ;
COOK, CD ;
SOKOL, RJ .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1995, 172 (06) :1792-1800
[9]  
Gilbert D.T., 2002, HEURISTICS BIASES, P167, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511808098.011
[10]  
Gilovich T, 1991, WE KNOW WHAT ISNT SO, P112