[Agreement and differences between reviewers in a peer review procedure].
In Germany the statutory pension insurance institutions have started a quality assurance programme. Our institute developed a peer review procedure for screening the process quality of rehabilitation care. The peer review was tested in a pilot study. Our article refers to the examination of interrater reliability, intrarater reliability and reviewer bias. First of all, experienced doctors were trained in reviewing reports routinely written by rehabilitation doctors at discharge of their patients. The peers had to judge on 56 process criteria belonging to six categories (e.g. case history). The reliability coefficients were calculated for the overall judgement of each category and the overall judgement of the process quality of rehabilitation care. The coefficients of interrater reliability and the coefficients of average intrarater reliability range from sufficient to good. Only few reviewers showed a general tendency to harsh or lenient rating. The objectivity of the tested peer review procedure seems definitely higher than in American studies of peer review of hospital charts.
Maier-Riehle
B
B
Department für Epidemiologie und Sozialmedizin, Bad Säckingen.
Gerdes
N
N
Protz
W
W
Jäckel
W H
WH
D015982:Bias; D004185:Disability Evaluation; D004608:Eligibility Determination / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005858:Germany; D006801:Humans; D009140:Musculoskeletal Diseases / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D015588:Observer Variation; D010380:Peer Review; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care; D012216:Rheumatic Diseases / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D012946:Social Welfare / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*