Review by panels of physicians, and sometimes allied health professionals, of services rendered by other physicians. Also refers to the process whereby publications have been independently reviewed by anonymous professionals who are experts in the con text area.
An advisory panel of experts from outside an organization who review research proposals and study results or manuscripts for accuracy and feasibility of the project in question.
An advisory panel of experts from outside an organization who review research proposals and study results or manuscripts for accuracy and feasibility of the project in question.
Generally, the evaluation by practicing physicians or other professionals of the effectiveness and efficiency of services ordered or performed by other practicing physicians or other members of the profession whose work is being reviewed (peers). Frequently refers to the activities of the Professional Standards Review Organizations (PSRO) which in 1972 were required by to review services provided under the Medicare, Medicaid, and Maternal and Child Health programs. Local PSROs, which receive Federal guidance and funding from HEW, are staffed by local physicians, osteopaths, and non-physicians. Their duties include the establishment of criteria, norms and standards for diagnosis and treatment of diseases encountered in the local PSRO jurisdiction, and review of services that are inconsistent with the established norms, e.g., hospital sta3^s longer than the normal length of stay. The norms may be input, process, or outcome measures. Peer review has been advocated as the only possible form of quality control for medical services because it is said that only a physician’s professional peers can judge his work. It has been criticized as having inherent conflict of interest, since, it is said, a physician will not properly judge those who will judge him, and also as not adequately reflecting patient objectives and points of view.
An assessment of a piece of someone’s work by people who are experts on the subject.
Review by individuals from the same discipline and with essentially equal qualifications (peers). “Peer review” usually means review of the performance of a physician, done by other physicians, although it applies to such activity within any discipline. Peer review sometimes leads to reduction or denial of privileges of a physician (or other professional) whose performance is reviewed. It is therefore especially important that the process be done fairly and in good faith to avoid legal liability.
The procedures used. by researchers and scientists to review the work, decisions and writings of their professional colleagues peer groups. Reviewers of scientific papers are commonly called referees, and papers submitted to medical and scientific journals for publication are customarily reviewed by one or more experts in the subject(s) dealt with in the paper. The aim is to improve the quality of the study by pointing out potential pitfalls or errors to the author(s), or to assist medical-journal editors in deciding which papers to prioritize for publication. Evidence that peer review is effective is mixed. Applications for research grants are also usually subjected to peer review.
The evaluation of the quality of the work effort of an individual by his or her peers. It could involve evaluation of articles submitted for publication or the quality of medical care administered by an individual, group, or hospital.
Mechanisms through which professionals in the medical and scientific domains evaluate the endeavors of their peers within the same field, aiming to uphold established norms and benchmarks.