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.
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 -