Five years of peer reviewing in the Quality Medicine Initiative

被引:5
作者
Eberlein-Gonska, Maria [1 ]
Budic, Anita [3 ]
Winklmair, Claudia [3 ]
Petzold, Thomas [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Tech Univ Dresden, Univ Klinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Zent Bereich Qualitats & Med Risikomanagement, Dresden, Germany
[2] Tech Univ Dresden, Univ Klinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Zentrum Evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsversorgung, Dresden, Germany
[3] Geschaftsstelle, Initiat Qualitatsmed, Dresden, Germany
来源
ZEITSCHRIFT FUR EVIDENZ FORTBILDUNG UND QUALITAET IM GESUNDHEITSWESEN | 2015年 / 109卷 / 9-10期
关键词
Peer review; initiative quality; medicine; quality improvement; routine data; transparency; curriculum peer review;
D O I
10.1016/j.zefq.2015.09.027
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
Objective: Peer review focuses on critical self-reflection, especially of physicians in direct contact and dialogue with other disciplines and professional groups. The main purpose of the peer review is the principle of self-determination, the intention to learn from each other more effectively, and a commitment to quality improvement. During the past five years the Quality in Medicine Initiative (IQM) has successfully promotes peer reviewing in German-speaking areas. The aim of this study is to investigate all records of IQM peer reviews and to outline the results in the course of development. The major focuses include medical aspects for improvement, information concerning organizational processes and the satisfaction of the visited hospitals. Method: A systematic descriptive analysis of all records as well as feedback sheets was conducted between 2010 and 2014. Results: 294 of 304 planned peer reviews were considered, involving among different hospital owners and different clinical conditions. The identified potential for improvement of the peer team was higher than that of the physicians of the hospitals visited. The assessment of the medical review criteria illustrates the following different trends: a positive development occurred concerning the appropriate and timely diagnostic and treatment; a clear potential for improvement could be established concerning a complete and conclusive documentation. Regarding the clinical conditions, anomalies were identified which are important for all IQM hospitals. As regards sustainability, first results from so-called re-reviews were available and provided important information pointing in the direction of structure and process improvement. The satisfaction of the visited physicians increased continuously within these five years. Conclusion: In the light of all data records and satisfaction sheets, the IQM peer review has become well-established over the last five years. Possible reasons are a well-defined framework, clear structures and different kinds of support. The success of the cooperation of the German Medical Association and IQM is illustrated by the development of the curriculum peer review. Re reviews provide impulses for sustainability. At any rate, there is a need for scientific evaluation of the peer review method in order to generate evidence for this important tool of quality improvement.
引用
收藏
页码:450 / 459
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] 10 years of Peer Reviewing - improving treatment by quality indicators from administrative data
    Krahwinkel, W.
    Rink, O.
    Liebetrau, M.
    Guenther, M.
    Schuler, E.
    Kuhlen, R.
    DEUTSCHE MEDIZINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT, 2011, 136 (41) : 2083 - 2088
  • [2] Benchmarking and peer reviewing with routine data, using the example of IQM (Initiative Qualitatsmedizin e.V)
    Scriba, Peter C.
    ZEITSCHRIFT FUR EVIDENZ FORTBILDUNG UND QUALITAET IM GESUNDHEITSWESEN, 2011, 105 (05): : 396 - 400
  • [3] Quality medicine initiative in urology
    Tritschler, Stefan
    UROLOGE, 2021, 60 (02): : 199 - 202
  • [4] The art of peer reviewing
    Byard, Roger W.
    FORENSIC SCIENCE MEDICINE AND PATHOLOGY, 2024,
  • [5] Reviewing peer review
    Schaeffer, Donna M.
    Olson, Patrick C.
    WMSCI 2006: 10TH WORLD MULTI-CONFERENCE ON SYSTEMICS, CYBERNETICS AND INFORMATICS, VOL VII, PROCEEDINGS, 2006, : 425 - +
  • [6] Reviewing Peer Review
    London, Barry
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION, 2021, 10 (15):
  • [7] Peer review A safety and quality improvement initiative in a general practice
    Rutherford, Angela
    AUSTRALIAN FAMILY PHYSICIAN, 2011, 40 (1-2) : 30 - 32
  • [8] Quality Assurance in Intensive Care Medicine: Peer Reviews and Quality Indicators
    Kumpf, Oliver
    Nothacker, Monika
    Dubb, Rolf
    Kaltwasser, Arnold
    Brinkmann, Alexander
    Greim, Clemens-A.
    Wildenauer, Rene
    ANASTHESIOLOGIE INTENSIVMEDIZIN NOTFALLMEDIZIN SCHMERZTHERAPIE, 2021, 56 (01): : 12 - 27
  • [9] Student revision with peer and expert reviewing
    Cho, Kwangsu
    MacArthur, Charles
    LEARNING AND INSTRUCTION, 2010, 20 (04) : 328 - 338
  • [10] Peer Reviewing Papers for a Nursing Journal
    Pierson, Charon A.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NURSING, 2022, 122 (11) : 52 - 56