title: The UK National Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Resources and Outcomes Project--a feasibility study of large-scale clinical service peer review.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Service provision and clinical outcomes for patients admitted with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease remain unacceptably variable despite guidelines and performance feedback of national audit, data. This study aims to assess the impact of mutual peer review on service improvement. The initial phase of this study was to assess the feasibility and determine the practicalities of delivering such a peer review programme on a large scale.
  
  
  METHODS
  All UK acute hospitals were invited to participate in a reciprocal peer review programme administered by a central team from three UK health organizations. Hospitals with the most resources were paired with those with the least (as defined in a baseline survey) and pairs randomized on a 3:2 basis into intervention or control groups. A number of key quality indicators were derived to measure service levels at the beginning and end of the study. Peer review teams included clinicians and managers from acute and primary care organizations and when possible a patient representative. Visits were focussed on four key areas of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease service. Teams were to agree service improvements and submit plans signed off by participants. Monthly change diaries were to be used to record progress towards agreed goals.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 100 hospitals participated in the programme. Overall, 52 of 54 peer review visits took place within a 4-week time frame and all units submitted service improvement plans within an agreed time frame. Secondary care representatives participated in all visits, primary care in 30 but patients in only 17. The mean number of diaries returned was 2, but 94% of units returned initial and final versions.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  It is possible to deliver successful large-scale mutual peer review using a limited but focussed programme. Participation of patients and use of change diaries requires further evaluation.
authors.affiliation: Clinical Effectiveness and Evaluation unit, Royal College of Physicians and Professor, Medical Education Queen Mary University of London Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK. c.m.roberts@qmul.ac.uk
authors.forename: Christopher M
authors.initials: CM
authors.lastname: Roberts
authors.forename: Rhona J
authors.initials: RJ
authors.lastname: Buckingham
authors.forename: Robert A
authors.initials: RA
authors.lastname: Stone
authors.forename: Derek
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Lowe
authors.forename: Michael G
authors.initials: MG
authors.lastname: Pearson
mesh_terms: D005240:Feasibility Studies; D006295:Health Resources; D006779:Hospitals, Public / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D008485:Medical Audit; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care; D010380:Peer Review; D029424:Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care / Q000379:methods*; D013222:State Medicine; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D006113:United Kingdom