Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Interventional radiology peer, a newly developed peer-review scoring system designed for interventional radiology practice.
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013 Oct; 24(10):1481-6.e1.JV

Abstract

PURPOSE

Existing diagnostic radiology peer-review systems do not address the specificities of interventional radiology (IR) practice. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of a specifically developed interventional peer review method, IR Peer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective review of a prospectively encoded pilot database aimed at demonstrating the feasibility of IR Peer in a multiphysician practice was performed. This scoring system used morning peer review of selected IR cases from the previous day in the form of a five-item questionnaire and an ordinal answer scale that grades reviewers' agreement with imaging findings, procedural/technical management, early outcomes, and follow-up plan. Patient lists from IR Peer and morbidity and mortality (M&M) conferences were compared to evaluate the amount of overlap and capability of IR Peer to help detect adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

A total of 417 consecutive reviews of IR attending physician cases by peers were performed in 163 consecutive patients over 18 months, and 94% of cases were reviewed by two or three IR attending physicians. Each question was answered 99%-100% of the time. Answers showed disagreement in 10% of cases (2% by a single reviewer, 8% by several), most related to procedural technique. Overall AE incidence was 1.8%. IR Peer contributed 10.7% of cases to the M&M list.

CONCLUSIONS

IR Peer is feasible, relevant, and easy to implement in a multiphysician IR practice. When used along with other quality-assurance processes, it might help in the detection of AEs for M&M; the latter will require further confirmatory research.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 22 S. Greene St. (N2W74), Baltimore, MD 21201.No affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

24070505

Citation

d'Othée, Bertrand Janne, and Ziv J. Haskal. "Interventional Radiology Peer, a Newly Developed Peer-review Scoring System Designed for Interventional Radiology Practice." Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology : JVIR, vol. 24, no. 10, 2013, pp. 1481-6.e1.
d'Othée BJ, Haskal ZJ. Interventional radiology peer, a newly developed peer-review scoring system designed for interventional radiology practice. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013;24(10):1481-6.e1.
d'Othée, B. J., & Haskal, Z. J. (2013). Interventional radiology peer, a newly developed peer-review scoring system designed for interventional radiology practice. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology : JVIR, 24(10), 1481-e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2013.07.001
d'Othée BJ, Haskal ZJ. Interventional Radiology Peer, a Newly Developed Peer-review Scoring System Designed for Interventional Radiology Practice. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013;24(10):1481-6.e1. PubMed PMID: 24070505.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Interventional radiology peer, a newly developed peer-review scoring system designed for interventional radiology practice. AU - d'Othée,Bertrand Janne, AU - Haskal,Ziv J, PY - 2012/12/17/received PY - 2013/06/21/revised PY - 2013/07/01/accepted PY - 2013/9/28/entrez PY - 2013/9/28/pubmed PY - 2014/4/26/medline KW - AE KW - IR KW - M&M KW - adverse event KW - interventional radiology KW - morbidity and mortality SP - 1481 EP - 6.e1 JF - Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR JO - J Vasc Interv Radiol VL - 24 IS - 10 N2 - PURPOSE: Existing diagnostic radiology peer-review systems do not address the specificities of interventional radiology (IR) practice. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of a specifically developed interventional peer review method, IR Peer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of a prospectively encoded pilot database aimed at demonstrating the feasibility of IR Peer in a multiphysician practice was performed. This scoring system used morning peer review of selected IR cases from the previous day in the form of a five-item questionnaire and an ordinal answer scale that grades reviewers' agreement with imaging findings, procedural/technical management, early outcomes, and follow-up plan. Patient lists from IR Peer and morbidity and mortality (M&M) conferences were compared to evaluate the amount of overlap and capability of IR Peer to help detect adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: A total of 417 consecutive reviews of IR attending physician cases by peers were performed in 163 consecutive patients over 18 months, and 94% of cases were reviewed by two or three IR attending physicians. Each question was answered 99%-100% of the time. Answers showed disagreement in 10% of cases (2% by a single reviewer, 8% by several), most related to procedural technique. Overall AE incidence was 1.8%. IR Peer contributed 10.7% of cases to the M&M list. CONCLUSIONS: IR Peer is feasible, relevant, and easy to implement in a multiphysician IR practice. When used along with other quality-assurance processes, it might help in the detection of AEs for M&M; the latter will require further confirmatory research. SN - 1535-7732 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/24070505/Interventional_radiology_peer_a_newly_developed_peer_review_scoring_system_designed_for_interventional_radiology_practice_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1051-0443(13)01185-8 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -