Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Meaningful Peer Review in Radiology: A Review of Current Practices and Potential Future Directions.
J Am Coll Radiol. 2016 Dec; 13(12 Pt A):1519-1524.JA

Abstract

The current practice of peer review within radiology is well developed and widely implemented compared with other medical specialties. However, there are many factors that limit current peer review practices from reducing diagnostic errors and improving patient care. The development of "meaningful peer review" requires a transition away from compliance toward quality improvement, whereby the information and insights gained facilitate education and drive systematic improvements that reduce the frequency and impact of diagnostic error. The next generation of peer review requires significant improvements in IT functionality and integration, enabling features such as anonymization, adjudication by multiple specialists, categorization and analysis of errors, tracking, feedback, and easy export into teaching files and other media that require strong partnerships with vendors. In this article, the authors assess various peer review practices, with focused discussion on current limitations and future needs for meaningful peer review in radiology.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Advanced Radiology Services, PC, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Division of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Electronic address: andymoriarity@gmail.com.Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.Advanced Medical Imaging Consultants, PC, Aurora, Colorado; University of Colorado School of Medicine, Fort Collins, Colorado.Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.Department of Radiology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.South Texas Radiology Group, San Antonio, Texas.University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia; US Department of Veterans Affairs, Hampton, Virginia.Scottsdale Health Partners, Phoenix, Arizona; Departments of Internal Medicine and Biomedical Informatics, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix, Arizona.Department of Radiology, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah.Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Review

Language

eng

PubMed ID

28233533

Citation

Moriarity, Andrew K., et al. "Meaningful Peer Review in Radiology: a Review of Current Practices and Potential Future Directions." Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, vol. 13, no. 12 Pt A, 2016, pp. 1519-1524.
Moriarity AK, Hawkins CM, Geis JR, et al. Meaningful Peer Review in Radiology: A Review of Current Practices and Potential Future Directions. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016;13(12 Pt A):1519-1524.
Moriarity, A. K., Hawkins, C. M., Geis, J. R., Dreyer, K. J., Kamer, A. P., Khandheria, P., Morey, J., Whitfill, J., Wiggins, R. H., & Itri, J. N. (2016). Meaningful Peer Review in Radiology: A Review of Current Practices and Potential Future Directions. Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 13(12 Pt A), 1519-1524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2016.08.005
Moriarity AK, et al. Meaningful Peer Review in Radiology: a Review of Current Practices and Potential Future Directions. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016;13(12 Pt A):1519-1524. PubMed PMID: 28233533.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Meaningful Peer Review in Radiology: A Review of Current Practices and Potential Future Directions. AU - Moriarity,Andrew K, AU - Hawkins,C Matthew, AU - Geis,J Raymond, AU - Dreyer,Keith J, AU - Kamer,Aaron P, AU - Khandheria,Paras, AU - Morey,Jose, AU - Whitfill,James, AU - Wiggins,Richard H,3rd AU - Itri,Jason N, Y1 - 2016/10/27/ PY - 2016/04/04/received PY - 2016/08/03/revised PY - 2016/08/04/accepted PY - 2017/2/25/entrez PY - 2017/2/25/pubmed PY - 2017/9/19/medline KW - Peer review KW - RADPEER KW - diagnostic error KW - feedback KW - human performance KW - quality improvement SP - 1519 EP - 1524 JF - Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR JO - J Am Coll Radiol VL - 13 IS - 12 Pt A N2 - The current practice of peer review within radiology is well developed and widely implemented compared with other medical specialties. However, there are many factors that limit current peer review practices from reducing diagnostic errors and improving patient care. The development of "meaningful peer review" requires a transition away from compliance toward quality improvement, whereby the information and insights gained facilitate education and drive systematic improvements that reduce the frequency and impact of diagnostic error. The next generation of peer review requires significant improvements in IT functionality and integration, enabling features such as anonymization, adjudication by multiple specialists, categorization and analysis of errors, tracking, feedback, and easy export into teaching files and other media that require strong partnerships with vendors. In this article, the authors assess various peer review practices, with focused discussion on current limitations and future needs for meaningful peer review in radiology. SN - 1558-349X UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/28233533/Meaningful_Peer_Review_in_Radiology:_A_Review_of_Current_Practices_and_Potential_Future_Directions_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1546-1440(16)30733-5 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -