Assessing peer review in the quest for improved medical services: Part II.
The first part of this article explored the flaws in the operation of peer review in two contexts: selection of articles for journal publication and decision-making in the award of research grants. There it was suggested that, to the extent these flaws had adverse effects on the information available to medical practitioners and those who conduct peer review of medical practice, the quest for improving the quality of health services is hampered. In this part of the article, medical peer review is defined, its practitioners noted, and the distinction between medical peer review and certain other activities and processes directed toward improving the quality of medical performance in hospitals illustrated.
Hershey
N
N
University of Pittsburgh, PA 15261.
Bontempo
L C
LC
D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D008505:Medical Staff, Hospital / Q000592:standards*; D010380:Peer Review; D012380:Role; D014481:United States