In my last column, I told the story of how I first came to test my assumption that clinical peer review would be forever antithetical to quality improvement.Today, I’d like to outline for you the characteristics that differentiate a QI model for peer review from the dysfunctional, legacy QA model.The QI model frames peer review as a quality improvement activity, not only to improve the process itself, but to better support the effort to improve clinical performance and patient safety.It’s a battle for the hearts and minds of the medical profession that will affect nursing as well: the way we know vs. the way it could be.
In both national studies, I found that the more peer review looks like QI instead of QA, the more effective it seems to be. As you can see from the table of comparisons, the qualitative differences are dramatic.
Paradoxically, for all the fear it has generated, the QA model has done little to generate accountability for improvement. This is probably because the threshold for action is so high that only the most egregious situations are addressed. In part, this stems from the poor reliability of the typical approach case review which looks only at whether the standard of care was met. It also confuses performance with competence.
The QI model holds that a single case review speaks primarily to situational performance. It deploys a more reliable, balanced methodology that is suited to data aggregation and seeks to extract whatever can be learned to improved clinical performance.
The QI model continues to evolve. For example, case identification has long been a problem. Most programs still rely on inefficient generic screens. Recognizing the sad reality that physicians always know when an adverse event occurs, but are often blocked from sharing and learning for fear of recrimination, I added case identification via self-reporting. The federal protections of the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 offer a simple mechanism to make it safe to self-report. I’ll share more about that in a future column. Meanwhile, evaluate your own peer review program against the QI model at QAtoQI.com/set.htm.
The theme of personal and organizational learning turns out to be critical to safety culture and quality improvement. Peer review is only part of the story.
Dr. Edwards has more than 20 years of healthcare management and consulting experience, including service as the senior physician executive in both teaching and community hospitals. He is the foremost authority on best practices in clinical peer review having conducted 3 national studies and published 7 related articles. He helps hospitals improve quality, safety, and resource use and operates a Federally-listed Patient Safety Organization.