Survey of peer review programs among pediatric radiologists

report from the SPR Quality and Safety Committee

Ramesh S. Iyer, David W. Swenson, Neil Anand, Einat Blumfield, Tushar Chandra, Govind B. Chavhan, Thomas R. Goodman, Naeem Khan, Michael M. Moore, Thang D. Ngo, Christina L. Sammet, Raymond W. Sze, Chido D. Vera, A. Luana Stanescu

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)517-525
Number of pages9
JournalPediatric Radiology
Volume49
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2019

Fingerprint

Peer Review
Radiology
Pediatrics
Safety
Learning
Radiology Information Systems
Quality Improvement
Surveys and Questionnaires
Radiologists

Keywords

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

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Survey of peer review programs among pediatric radiologists : report from the SPR Quality and Safety Committee. / Iyer, Ramesh S.; Swenson, David W.; Anand, Neil; Blumfield, Einat; Chandra, Tushar; Chavhan, Govind B.; Goodman, Thomas R.; Khan, Naeem; Moore, Michael M.; Ngo, Thang D.; Sammet, Christina L.; Sze, Raymond W.; Vera, Chido D.; Stanescu, A. Luana.

In: Pediatric Radiology, Vol. 49, No. 4, 01.04.2019, p. 517-525.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Iyer, RS, Swenson, DW, Anand, N, Blumfield, E, Chandra, T, Chavhan, GB, Goodman, TR, Khan, N, Moore, MM, Ngo, TD, Sammet, CL, Sze, RW, Vera, CD & Stanescu, AL 2019, 'Survey of peer review programs among pediatric radiologists: report from the SPR Quality and Safety Committee', Pediatric Radiology, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 517-525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-018-4289-3
Iyer, Ramesh S. ; Swenson, David W. ; Anand, Neil ; Blumfield, Einat ; Chandra, Tushar ; Chavhan, Govind B. ; Goodman, Thomas R. ; Khan, Naeem ; Moore, Michael M. ; Ngo, Thang D. ; Sammet, Christina L. ; Sze, Raymond W. ; Vera, Chido D. ; Stanescu, A. Luana. / Survey of peer review programs among pediatric radiologists : report from the SPR Quality and Safety Committee. In: Pediatric Radiology. 2019 ; Vol. 49, No. 4. pp. 517-525.
@article{bd6ffda2a6c44f3abd32eba285396f26,
title = "Survey of peer review programs among pediatric radiologists: report from the SPR Quality and Safety Committee",
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",
author = "Iyer, {Ramesh S.} and Swenson, {David W.} and Neil Anand and Einat Blumfield and Tushar Chandra and Chavhan, {Govind B.} and Goodman, {Thomas R.} and Naeem Khan and Moore, {Michael M.} and Ngo, {Thang D.} and Sammet, {Christina L.} and Sze, {Raymond W.} and Vera, {Chido D.} and Stanescu, {A. Luana}",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00247-018-4289-3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "49",
pages = "517--525",
journal = "Pediatric Radiology",
issn = "0301-0449",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Survey of peer review programs among pediatric radiologists

T2 - report from the SPR Quality and Safety Committee

AU - Iyer, Ramesh S.

AU - Swenson, David W.

AU - Anand, Neil

AU - Blumfield, Einat

AU - Chandra, Tushar

AU - Chavhan, Govind B.

AU - Goodman, Thomas R.

AU - Khan, Naeem

AU - Moore, Michael M.

AU - Ngo, Thang D.

AU - Sammet, Christina L.

AU - Sze, Raymond W.

AU - Vera, Chido D.

AU - Stanescu, A. Luana

PY - 2019/4/1

Y1 - 2019/4/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Comments

KW - Pediatric radiology

KW - Peer learning

KW - Peer review

KW - Quality

KW - Survey

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85063901409&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85063901409&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00247-018-4289-3

DO - 10.1007/s00247-018-4289-3

M3 - Review article

VL - 49

SP - 517

EP - 525

JO - Pediatric Radiology

JF - Pediatric Radiology

SN - 0301-0449

IS - 4

ER -