Advertisement

Therapeutic Issues and Quality Assurance Efforts

  • Milton Theaman

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.

Keywords

American Psychological Association Peer Review Process Theoretical Orientation Limited Waiver Review Program 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Psychological Association. (1974). Standards for providers of psychological services. Washington, DC: AuthorGoogle Scholar
  2. American Psychological Association. (1983). Standard agreement with insurance carriers for provision of peer review for outpatient psychological services. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  3. Benedict, J. G., & Stricker, G. (1983). Report on survey of clinical practice. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  4. 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 Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
  5. California State Legislature. (1981-1982). Regular session. Assembly bill No. 3480.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, L. (1981). Peer review of psychodynamic psychotherapy: An experimental study of the APA/ CHAMPUS program. Professional Psychology, 12, 776–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, L., & Pizzirusso, D. (1982). Peer review of psychodynamic psychotherapy: Experimental studies of the APA/CHAMPUS program. Evaluation and Health Professions, 5, 415–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. Ohio State Legislature. (1977-1978). Regular session, 112th General Assembly. LSC 112 0423-6.Google Scholar
  13. Pearce, J., & Newton, S. (1969). The conditions of human growth. New York: Citadel Press.Google Scholar
  14. Specialty guidelines for the delivery of services by clinical psychologists. (1981). American Psychologist, 36(6), 640–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California, 520 P. 2d 553 (1976).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Milton Theaman
    • 1
  1. 1.New YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations