Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Pediatr Radiol. 2019 Apr;49(4):517-525. doi: 10.1007/s00247-018-4289-3. Epub 2019 Mar 29.

Survey of peer review programs among pediatric radiologists: report from the SPR Quality and Safety Committee.

Author information

1
Department of Radiology, MA.7.220, Seattle Children's Hospital, University of Washington School of Medicine, 4800 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA, 98105, USA. riyer@uw.edu.
2
Department of Radiology, Warren Alpert School of Medicine, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
3
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Morristown Medical Center, Morristown, NJ, USA.
4
Department of Radiology, Children's Hospital of Montefiore, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA.
5
Department of Medical Imaging, Nemours Children's Hospital, Orlando, FL, USA.
6
Department of Radiology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada.
7
Department of Radiology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
8
Department of Diagnostic Imaging, IWK Health Center, Halifax, NS, Canada.
9
Department of Radiology, Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, PA, USA.
10
Department of Radiology, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital, Chicago, IL, USA.
11
Department of Radiology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
12
Department of Radiology, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
13
Department of Radiology, MA.7.220, Seattle Children's Hospital, University of Washington School of Medicine, 4800 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA, 98105, USA.

Abstract

During the last 15 years, peer review has been widely incorporated into radiology quality improvement programs. However, current implementations are variable and carry concerns, including subjectivity of numerical scores and a sense of merely satisfying regulatory requirements. The Society for Pediatric Radiology (SPR) Quality and Safety Committee sought to evaluate the state of peer review programs in pediatric radiology practices, including implementation methods, perceived functions, strengths and weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement. We distributed an online 16-question survey to SPR members. Questions pertained to the type of peer review system, the use of numerical scores and comments, how feedback on discordances is given and received, and the use of peer learning conferences. We collected 219 responses (15% of survey invitations), 80% of which were from children's hospitals. Fifty percent of respondents said they use a picture archiving and communication system (PACS)-integrated peer review system. Comment-enhanced feedback for interpretive discordances was either very important or somewhat important to performance improvement in 86% of responses, compared to 48% with a similar perception of numerical scores. Sixty-eight percent of respondents said they either rarely or never check their numerical scores, and 82% either strongly or somewhat agreed that comments are more effective feedback than numerical scores. Ninety-three percent either strongly or somewhat agreed that peer learning conferences would be beneficial to their practice. Forty-eight percent thought that their current peer review system should be modified. Survey results demonstrate that peer review systems in pediatric radiology practices are implemented variably, and nearly half of respondents believe their systems should be modified. Most respondents prefer feedback in the form of comments and peer learning conferences, which are thought to be more beneficial for performance improvement than numerical scores.

KEYWORDS:

Comments; Pediatric radiology; Peer learning; Peer review; Quality; Survey

PMID:
30923884
DOI:
10.1007/s00247-018-4289-3
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center