Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1965601921> ?p ?o ?g. }
- W1965601921 endingPage "161" @default.
- W1965601921 startingPage "152" @default.
- W1965601921 abstract "Peer review is used to make final judgments about quality of care in many quality assurance activities. To overcome the low reliability of peer review, discussion between several reviewers is often recommended to point out overlooked information or allow for reconsideration of opinions and thus improve reliability. The authors assessed the impact of discussion between 2 reviewers on the reliability of peer review.A group of 13 board-certified physicians completed a total of 741 structured implicit record reviews of 95 records for patients who experienced severe adverse events related to laboratory abnormalities while in the hospital (hypokalemia, hyperkalemia, renal failure, hyponatremia, and digoxin toxicity). They independently assessed the degree to which each adverse event was caused by medical care and the quality of the care leading up to the adverse event. Working in pairs, they then discussed differences of opinion, clarified factual discrepancies, and rerated the record. The authors compared the reliability of each measure before and after discussion, and between and within pairs of reviewers, using the intraclass correlation coefficient for continuous ratings and the kappa statistic for a dichotomized rating.The assessment of whether the laboratory abnormality was iatrogenic had a reliability of 0.46 before discussion and 0.71 after discussion between paired reviewers, indicating considerably improved agreement between the members of a pair. However, across reviewer pairs, the reviewer reliability was 0.36 before discussion and 0.40 after discussion. Similarly, for the rating of overall quality of care, reliability of physician review went from 0.35 before discussion to 0.58 after discussion as assessed by pair. However, across pairs the reliability increased only from 0.14 to 0.17. Even for prediscussion ratings, reliability was substantially higher between 2 members of a pair than across pairs, suggesting that reviewers who work in pairs learn to be more consistent with each other even before discussion, but this consistency also did not improve overall reliability across pairs.When 2 physicians discuss a record that they are reviewing, it substantially improves the agreement between those 2 physicians. However, this improvement is illusory, as discussion does not improve the overall reliability as assessed by examining the reliability between physicians who were part of different discussions. This finding may also have implications with regard to how disagreements are resolved on consensus panels, guideline committees, and reviews of literature quality for meta-analyses." @default.
- W1965601921 created "2016-06-24" @default.
- W1965601921 creator A5033086949 @default.
- W1965601921 creator A5051649740 @default.
- W1965601921 creator A5069680858 @default.
- W1965601921 creator A5083330944 @default.
- W1965601921 date "2000-02-01" @default.
- W1965601921 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
- W1965601921 title "Discussion Between Reviewers Does Not Improve Reliability of Peer Review of Hospital Quality" @default.
- W1965601921 cites W1967558049 @default.
- W1965601921 cites W1970863546 @default.
- W1965601921 cites W1975712394 @default.
- W1965601921 cites W1977126351 @default.
- W1965601921 cites W1994090818 @default.
- W1965601921 cites W2018118983 @default.
- W1965601921 cites W2027606685 @default.
- W1965601921 cites W2027975707 @default.
- W1965601921 cites W2039939054 @default.
- W1965601921 cites W2053017136 @default.
- W1965601921 cites W2077437308 @default.
- W1965601921 cites W2088973845 @default.
- W1965601921 cites W2126746207 @default.
- W1965601921 cites W2140154087 @default.
- W1965601921 cites W2165790792 @default.
- W1965601921 cites W2332704525 @default.
- W1965601921 cites W4233061465 @default.
- W1965601921 cites W4234067313 @default.
- W1965601921 cites W4239484048 @default.
- W1965601921 cites W4243521553 @default.
- W1965601921 cites W4249370061 @default.
- W1965601921 cites W4254446074 @default.
- W1965601921 cites W4294214797 @default.
- W1965601921 cites W70273200 @default.
- W1965601921 cites W2566477441 @default.
- W1965601921 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200002000-00005" @default.
- W1965601921 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10659689" @default.
- W1965601921 hasPublicationYear "2000" @default.
- W1965601921 type Work @default.
- W1965601921 sameAs 1965601921 @default.
- W1965601921 citedByCount "74" @default.
- W1965601921 countsByYear W19656019212012 @default.
- W1965601921 countsByYear W19656019212013 @default.
- W1965601921 countsByYear W19656019212014 @default.
- W1965601921 countsByYear W19656019212015 @default.
- W1965601921 countsByYear W19656019212016 @default.
- W1965601921 countsByYear W19656019212017 @default.
- W1965601921 countsByYear W19656019212018 @default.
- W1965601921 countsByYear W19656019212019 @default.
- W1965601921 countsByYear W19656019212020 @default.
- W1965601921 countsByYear W19656019212021 @default.
- W1965601921 countsByYear W19656019212022 @default.
- W1965601921 countsByYear W19656019212023 @default.
- W1965601921 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W1965601921 hasAuthorship W1965601921A5033086949 @default.
- W1965601921 hasAuthorship W1965601921A5051649740 @default.
- W1965601921 hasAuthorship W1965601921A5069680858 @default.
- W1965601921 hasAuthorship W1965601921A5083330944 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConcept C104709138 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConcept C138496976 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConcept C163258240 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConcept C163864269 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConcept C171606756 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConcept C197934379 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConcept C2779530757 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConcept C43214815 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConcept C61863361 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConcept C70410870 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConcept C83849319 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConceptScore W1965601921C104709138 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConceptScore W1965601921C105795698 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConceptScore W1965601921C111472728 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConceptScore W1965601921C121332964 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConceptScore W1965601921C126322002 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConceptScore W1965601921C138496976 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConceptScore W1965601921C138885662 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConceptScore W1965601921C15744967 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConceptScore W1965601921C163258240 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConceptScore W1965601921C163864269 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConceptScore W1965601921C171606756 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConceptScore W1965601921C197934379 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConceptScore W1965601921C2779530757 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConceptScore W1965601921C33923547 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConceptScore W1965601921C43214815 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConceptScore W1965601921C512399662 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConceptScore W1965601921C61863361 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConceptScore W1965601921C62520636 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConceptScore W1965601921C70410870 @default.
- W1965601921 hasConceptScore W1965601921C71924100 @default.