Interventional Radiology Peer, a Newly Developed Peer-Review Scoring System Designed for Interventional Radiology Practice

• Published in: Journal of vascular and interventional radiology Vol. 24; no. 10; pp. 1481 - 1486.e1
• Main Authors: d’Othée, Bertrand Janne, MD, MPH, Haskal, Ziv J, MD
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.10.2013
• Subjects: Employee Performance Appraisal - methods; Employee Performance Appraisal - standards; Employee Performance Appraisal - statistics & numerical data; Observer Variation; Peer Review, Health Care - methods; Professional Competence - standards; Professional Competence - statistics & numerical data; Quality Assurance, Health Care - methods; Quality Assurance, Health Care - standards; Radiology; Radiology, Interventional - standards; Radiology, Interventional - statistics & numerical data; Surveys and Questionnaires; United States; United States; adverse event; IR; interventional radiology; AE; morbidity and mortality; M&M
• ISSN: 1051-0443; 1535-7732
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2013.07.001

Abstract Purpose Existing diagnostic radiology peer-review systems do not address the specificities of interventional radiology (IR) practice. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of a specifically developed interventional peer review method, IR Peer. Materials and Methods Retrospective review of a prospectively encoded pilot database aimed at demonstrating the feasibility of IR Peer in a multiphysician practice was performed. This scoring system used morning peer review of selected IR cases from the previous day in the form of a five-item questionnaire and an ordinal answer scale that grades reviewers’ agreement with imaging findings, procedural/technical management, early outcomes, and follow-up plan. Patient lists from IR Peer and morbidity and mortality (M&M) conferences were compared to evaluate the amount of overlap and capability of IR Peer to help detect adverse events (AEs). Results A total of 417 consecutive reviews of IR attending physician cases by peers were performed in 163 consecutive patients over 18 months, and 94% of cases were reviewed by two or three IR attending physicians. Each question was answered 99%–100% of the time. Answers showed disagreement in 10% of cases (2% by a single reviewer, 8% by several), most related to procedural technique. Overall AE incidence was 1.8%. IR Peer contributed 10.7% of cases to the M&M list. Conclusions IR Peer is feasible, relevant, and easy to implement in a multiphysician IR practice. When used along with other quality-assurance processes, it might help in the detection of AEs for M&M; the latter will require further confirmatory research.