Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Peer review comments augment diagnostic error characterization and departmental quality assurance: 1-year experience from a children's hospital.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013 Jan; 200(1):132-7.AA

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to categorize radiologist peer review comments and evaluate their functions within the context of a comprehensive quality assurance (QA) program.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All randomly entered radiology peer review comments at our institution were compiled over a 1-year period (January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011). A Web-based commercially available software package was used to query the comments, which were then exported into a spreadsheet. Each comment was then placed into a single most appropriate category based on consensus decision of two board-certified pediatric radiologists. QA scores associated with each comment were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 427 peer review comments were evaluated. The majority of comments (85.9%) were entered voluntarily with QA scores of 1. A classification system was devised that augments traditional error classification. Seven broad comment categories were identified: errors of observation (25.5%), errors of interpretation (5.6%), inadequate patient data gathering (3.7%), errors of communication (9.6%), interobserver variability (21.3%), informational and educational feedback (23.0%), and complimentary (11.2%).

CONCLUSION

Comment-enhanced peer review expands traditional diagnostic error classification, may identify errors that were underscored, provides continuous educational feedback for participants, and promotes a collegial environment.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Radiology, Seattle Children's Hospital, 4800 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98105, USA. riyer@uw.eduNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

23255752

Citation

Iyer, Ramesh S., et al. "Peer Review Comments Augment Diagnostic Error Characterization and Departmental Quality Assurance: 1-year Experience From a Children's Hospital." AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 200, no. 1, 2013, pp. 132-7.
Iyer RS, Swanson JO, Otto RK, et al. Peer review comments augment diagnostic error characterization and departmental quality assurance: 1-year experience from a children's hospital. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(1):132-7.
Iyer, R. S., Swanson, J. O., Otto, R. K., & Weinberger, E. (2013). Peer review comments augment diagnostic error characterization and departmental quality assurance: 1-year experience from a children's hospital. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology, 200(1), 132-7. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9580
Iyer RS, et al. Peer Review Comments Augment Diagnostic Error Characterization and Departmental Quality Assurance: 1-year Experience From a Children's Hospital. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(1):132-7. PubMed PMID: 23255752.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Peer review comments augment diagnostic error characterization and departmental quality assurance: 1-year experience from a children's hospital. AU - Iyer,Ramesh S, AU - Swanson,Jonathan O, AU - Otto,Randolph K, AU - Weinberger,Edward, PY - 2012/12/21/entrez PY - 2012/12/21/pubmed PY - 2013/2/21/medline SP - 132 EP - 7 JF - AJR. American journal of roentgenology JO - AJR Am J Roentgenol VL - 200 IS - 1 N2 - OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to categorize radiologist peer review comments and evaluate their functions within the context of a comprehensive quality assurance (QA) program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All randomly entered radiology peer review comments at our institution were compiled over a 1-year period (January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011). A Web-based commercially available software package was used to query the comments, which were then exported into a spreadsheet. Each comment was then placed into a single most appropriate category based on consensus decision of two board-certified pediatric radiologists. QA scores associated with each comment were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 427 peer review comments were evaluated. The majority of comments (85.9%) were entered voluntarily with QA scores of 1. A classification system was devised that augments traditional error classification. Seven broad comment categories were identified: errors of observation (25.5%), errors of interpretation (5.6%), inadequate patient data gathering (3.7%), errors of communication (9.6%), interobserver variability (21.3%), informational and educational feedback (23.0%), and complimentary (11.2%). CONCLUSION: Comment-enhanced peer review expands traditional diagnostic error classification, may identify errors that were underscored, provides continuous educational feedback for participants, and promotes a collegial environment. SN - 1546-3141 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/23255752/Peer_review_comments_augment_diagnostic_error_characterization_and_departmental_quality_assurance:_1_year_experience_from_a_children's_hospital_ L2 - http://www.ajronline.org/doi/full/10.2214/AJR.12.9580 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -