Abstract
Peer learning represents a shift away from traditional peer review. Peer learning focuses on improvement of diagnostic performance rather than on suboptimal performance. The shift in focus away from random selection and toward identification of cases with valuable teaching points can encourage more active radiologist engagement in the learning process. An effective peer learning program relies on a trusting environment that lessens the fear of embarrassment or punitive action. Here we describe the shortcomings of traditional peer review, and the benefits of peer learning. We also provide tips for a successful peer learning program and examples of implementation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America (2000) To err is human: building a safer health system. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
Halsted MJ (2004) Radiology peer review as an opportunity to reduce errors and improve patient care. J Am Coll Radiol 1:984–987
Abujudeh H, Pyatt RS, Bruno MA et al (2014) RADPEER peer review: relevance, use, concerns, challenges, and direction forward. J Am Coll Radiol 11:899–904
Goldberg-Stein S, Frigini LA, Long S et al (2017) ACR RADPEER committee white paper with 2016 updates: revised scoring system, new classifications, self-review, and subspecialized reports. J Am Coll Radiol 14:1080–1086
Committee on Diagnostic Error in Health Care, Board on Health Care Services, Institute of Medicine et al (2015) Improving diagnosis in health care. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
Donnelly LF, Larson DB, Heller REIII, Kruskal JB (2018) Practical suggestions on how to move from peer review to peer learning. AJR Am J Roentgenol 210:578–582
Larson DB, Donnelly LF, Podberesky DJ et al (2016) Peer feedback, learning, and improvement: answering the call of the institute of medicine report on diagnostic error. Radiology 283:231–241
Cascade PN (2004) Comment on “RADPEER quality assurance program: a multifacility study of interpretive disagreement rates.” J Am Coll Radiol 1:295–296
Eisenberg RL, Cunningham ML, Siewert B, Kruskal JB (2014) Survey of faculty perceptions regarding a peer review system. J Am Coll Radiol 11:397–401
Larson DB, Nance JJ (2011) Rethinking peer review: what aviation can teach radiology about performance improvement. Radiology 259:626–632
Borgstede JP, Lewis RS, Bhargavan M, Sunshine JH (2004) RADPEER quality assurance program: a multifacility study of interpretive disagreement rates. J Am Coll Radiol 1:59–65
Jackson VP, Cushing T, Abujudeh HH et al (2009) RADPEER scoring white paper. J Am Coll Radiol 6:21–25
Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S et al (2012) Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 6:CD000259
Alkasab TK, Harvey HB, Gowda V et al (2014) Consensus-oriented group peer review: a new process to review radiologist work output. J Am Coll Radiol 11:131–138
Kruskal JB, Eisenberg RL, Brook O, Siewert B (2016) Transitioning from peer review to peer learning for abdominal radiologists. Abdom Radiol N Y 41:416–428
Grenville J, Doucette-Preville D, Vlachou PA et al (2016) Peer review in radiology: a resident and fellow perspective. J Am Coll Radiol 13:217–221.e3
American Board of Radiology (2018) Maintenance of certification for diagnostic radiology: participatory activities. https://www.theabr.org/diagnostic-radiology/maintenance-of-certification/improvement-medical-practice/participatory-activities. Accessed 11 Sept 2018
Swanson JO, Thapa MM, Iyer RS et al (2012) Optimizing peer review: a year of experience after instituting a real-time comment-enhanced program at a children’s hospital. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:1121–1125
Stanescu AL, Parisi MT, Weinberger E et al (2016) Peer review: lessons learned in a pediatric radiology department. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 45:139–148
Iyer RS, Swanson JO, Otto RK, Weinberger E (2013) Peer review comments augment diagnostic error characterization and departmental quality assurance: 1-year experience from a children’s hospital. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:132–137
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
None
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ngo, AV., Stanescu, A.L., Swenson, D.W. et al. Practical considerations when implementing peer learning conferences. Pediatr Radiol 49, 526–530 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-018-4305-7
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-018-4305-7