HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hastings, G E Articles by Sasmor, L Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hastings, G E Articles by Sasmor, L

Peer review checklist: reproducibility and validity of a method for evaluating the quality of ambulatory care.

G E Hastings, R Sonneborn, G H Lee, L Vick and L Sasmor

This report describes the construction and evaluation fo a 35-item checklist used in performing peer review of ambulatory medical records. Scores obtained by using the checklist were evaluated for reproducibility. Ten reviewers, reviewing ten records on each of two occasions judged the records consistently item by item, 74 per cent of the time; 53 per cent greater than expected by chance (p less than 0.01). Pairs of reviewers, reviewing the same ten records, were consistent with one another, item by item, 72 per cent of the time; 35 per cent greater than expected by chance (p less than 0.05). Ten sick call patients were reexamined by an especially trained Reevaluation Physician who evaluated the quality with which they had been managed at the time of sick call. The medical records of the same ten patients were then reviewed with the Peer Review Checklist. The correlation between the quality scores obtained by the two methods were 0.72 and 0.74 on two trials. A correlation coefficient of 0.44 was found between the two evaluation methods when 89 cases were reviewed by a Peer Review panel composed of 10 different physicians. Peer Review Checklist scores correlated positively with scores obtained by using a series of disease specific protocols with explicit criteria. The correlations varied from 0.28 to 0.63 with six different disease specific protocols.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. L. Goldman The Reliability of Peer Assessments: A Meta-Analysis Eval Health Prof, March 1, 1994; 17(1): 3 - 21. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. Hershey and L. C. Bontempo Assessing Peer Review in the Quest for Improved Medical Services: Part II American Journal of Medical Quality, February 1, 1990; 5(1): 7 - 11. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. Hershey and L. C. Bontempo Assessing Peer Review in the Quest for Improved Medical Services American Journal of Medical Quality, November 1, 1989; 4(4): 94 - 100. [Abstract] [PDF]