title: Meaningful Peer Review in Radiology: A Review of Current Practices and Potential Future Directions.
abstract: The current practice of peer review within radiology is well developed and widely implemented compared with other medical specialties. However, there are many factors that limit current peer review practices from reducing diagnostic errors and improving patient care. The development of "meaningful peer review" requires a transition away from compliance toward quality improvement, whereby the information and insights gained facilitate education and drive systematic improvements that reduce the frequency and impact of diagnostic error. The next generation of peer review requires significant improvements in IT functionality and integration, enabling features such as anonymization, adjudication by multiple specialists, categorization and analysis of errors, tracking, feedback, and easy export into teaching files and other media that require strong partnerships with vendors. In this article, the authors assess various peer review practices, with focused discussion on current limitations and future needs for meaningful peer review in radiology.
authors.affiliation: Advanced Radiology Services, PC, Grand Rapids, Michigan; Division of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Electronic address: andymoriarity@gmail.com.
authors.forename: Andrew K
authors.initials: AK
authors.lastname: Moriarity
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
authors.forename: C Matthew
authors.initials: CM
authors.lastname: Hawkins
authors.affiliation: Advanced Medical Imaging Consultants, PC, Aurora, Colorado; University of Colorado School of Medicine, Fort Collins, Colorado.
authors.forename: J Raymond
authors.initials: JR
authors.lastname: Geis
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
authors.forename: Keith J
authors.initials: KJ
authors.lastname: Dreyer
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
authors.forename: Aaron P
authors.initials: AP
authors.lastname: Kamer
authors.affiliation: South Texas Radiology Group, San Antonio, Texas.
authors.forename: Paras
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Khandheria
authors.affiliation: University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia; US Department of Veterans Affairs, Hampton, Virginia.
authors.forename: Jose
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Morey
authors.affiliation: Scottsdale Health Partners, Phoenix, Arizona; Departments of Internal Medicine and Biomedical Informatics, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix, Arizona.
authors.forename: James
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Whitfill
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah.
authors.forename: Richard H
authors.initials: RH
authors.lastname: Wiggins
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
authors.forename: Jason N
authors.initials: JN
authors.lastname: Itri
mesh_terms: D002983:Clinical Competence / Q000592:standards; D003951:Diagnostic Errors / Q000517:prevention & control*; D005544:Forecasting; D006801:Humans; D018024:Peer Review, Health Care / Q000592:standards*; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care / Q000592:standards*; D058996:Quality Improvement; D011871:Radiology / Q000592:standards*
keywords: Peer review; RADPEER; diagnostic error; feedback; human performance; quality improvement