Abstract
Peer review, particularly its application to outpatient treatment, is a recent addition to quality assurance procedures. Its introduction has raised concern about the effect it will have on clinical practice. This discussion will address these concerns. The justification for these concerns will be evaluated by means of early experience with the peer review process. The issues that will be considered are (a) the relation of peer review to standards of practice; (b) confidentiality; (c) usual and customary practice versus necessary and appropriate treatment as a review criterion; (d) the theoretical orientation of provider and reviewer; (e) reimbursement of providers for completion of report forms; and (f) reactions to peer review.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
American Psychological Association. (1974). Standards for providers of psychological services. Washington, DC: Author
American Psychological Association. (1983). Standard agreement with insurance carriers for provision of peer review for outpatient psychological services. Washington, DC: Author.
Benedict, J. G., & Stricker, G. (1983). Report on survey of clinical practice. Unpublished manuscript.
Biskin, B. (1983). The effects of theoretical orientation and experience on the quality of peer review of outpatient psychological services and reimbursement recommendations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
California State Legislature. (1981-1982). Regular session. Assembly bill No. 3480.
Cohen, L. (1981). Peer review of psychodynamic psychotherapy: An experimental study of the APA/ CHAMPUS program. Professional Psychology, 12, 776–784.
Cohen, L., & Oyster-Nelson, C. (1981). Clinicians’ evaluations of psychodynamic psychotherapy: Experimental data on psychological peer review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 583–589.
Cohen, L., & Pizzirusso, D. (1982). Peer review of psychodynamic psychotherapy: Experimental studies of the APA/CHAMPUS program. Evaluation and Health Professions, 5, 415–436.
Ennis, B.J., Friedman, P. R., Bersoff, D. N., & Ewing, M. F. (1983, August 23). Memorandum of the effect of a patient’s release of confidential treatment information for peer review purposes, submitted to the American Psychological Association.
Lowenstein, A. V., Sandler, R. M., Brochin, M. D., Kohl, B. M., Fisher, A., Boylan, M. P., & Meanor, M. C. (1983, July 1). Memorandum on confidentiality and peer review submitted to New Jersey Psychological Association.
Mariano, W., & Feldman, S. (1983). Privileged communications and confidentiality. In New York State Psychological Association annual reference diary. New York: New York State Psychological Association.
Ohio State Legislature. (1977-1978). Regular session, 112th General Assembly. LSC 112 0423-6.
Pearce, J., & Newton, S. (1969). The conditions of human growth. New York: Citadel Press.
Specialty guidelines for the delivery of services by clinical psychologists. (1981). American Psychologist, 36(6), 640–651.
Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California, 520 P. 2d 553 (1976).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1988 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Theaman, M. (1988). Therapeutic Issues and Quality Assurance Efforts. In: Stricker, G., Rodriguez, A.R. (eds) Handbook of Quality Assurance in Mental Health. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-5236-5_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-5236-5_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4684-5238-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-4684-5236-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive