Abstract
Conventional peer review practice is compromised by a number of well-documented biases, which in turn limit standard of care analysis, which is fundamental to determination of medical malpractice. In addition to these intrinsic biases, other existing deficiencies exist in current peer review including the lack of standardization, objectivity, retrospective practice, and automation. An alternative model to address these deficiencies would be one which is completely blinded to the peer reviewer, requires independent reporting from both parties, utilizes automated data mining techniques for neutral and objective report analysis, and provides data reconciliation for resolution of finding-specific report differences. If properly implemented, this peer review model could result in creation of a standardized referenceable peer review database which could further assist in customizable education, technology refinement, and implementation of real-time context and user-specific decision support.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Strauss DC, Thomas. What does the medical profession mean by “standard of care”? J Clin Oncology 2009; 27: 192–193
Moffett P, Moore G: The standard of care: legal history and definitions: the good news and the bad news. West J Emerg Med 12:109–112, 2011
Hall v Hillburn, 466 So.2d 856 (Miss. 1985)
Kaewlai R, Abujudeh H: Peer review in clinical radiology practice. AJR 199:158–162, 2012
Vidmar N: Juries and medical malpractice claims: empirical facts versus myths. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2:367–375, 2009
Weintraub MI: Expert witness testimony: an update. In: Weintraub MI Ed.. Neurologic Clinics of North America. Philadelphia: W.B.Saunders, 1999, pp. 363–370
Krupinski EA: Current perspectives in medical image perception. Alteration, Perception & Psychophysis 5:1205–1217, 2010
Durand DJ, Robertson CT, Agarwal G et al.: Expert witness blinding strategies to mitigate bias in radiology malpractice cases: a comprehensive review of the literature. J Am Coll Radiol 11:868–873, 2014
Harvey JA, Fajardo LL, Innis CA: Previous mammograms in patients with impalpable breast carcinoma: retrospective vs blinded interpretation. AJR 161:1167–1172, 1993
Egglin TK, Feinstein AR: Context bias. A problem in diagnostic radiology. JAMA 276:1752–1755, 1996
Berlin L: Hindsight bias. AJR 175:597–601, 2000
Erly WK, Tran M, Dillon RC et al.: Impact of hindsight bias on interpretation of nonenhanced CT head scans for acute stroke. J Comput Assist Tomogr 34:229–232, 2010
Berlin L: Outcome bias. AJR 183:557–560, 2004
LaBine SJLG: Determinations of negligence and the hindsight bias. Law Hum Behav 21:501–516, 1996
McEnery KW, Suitor CT, Hildebrand S et al.: Integration of radiologist peer review into clinical review workstation. J Digit Imaging 13:101–104, 2000
Mahgerefteh S, Kruskal JB, Yam CS et al.: Peer review in diagnostic radiology: current state and a vision for the future. RadioGraphics 29:1221–1231, 2009
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Reiner, B.I. Redefining the Practice of Peer Review Through Intelligent Automation Part 1: Creation of a Standardized Methodology and Referenceable Database. J Digit Imaging 30, 530–533 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-017-0004-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-017-0004-4