A randomised trial of peer review: the UK National Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Resources and Outcomes Project

• Published in: Clinical medicine (London, England) Vol. 10; no. 3; pp. 223 - 227
• Main Authors: Roberts, CM, Stone, RA, Buckingham, RJ, Pursey, NA, Harrison, BDW, Lowe, D, Potter, JM
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Elsevier Ltd 01.06.2010; Royal College of Physicians
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma; Evidence-Based Medicine; General aspects; Humans; Medical sciences; NHS; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; peer review; Peer Review, Health Care; Pneumology; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive - therapy; Quality of Health Care; randomised trial; State Medicine - organization & administration; State Medicine - standards; United Kingdom; United Kingdom; Europe; NHS; randomised trial; peer review; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; Health system; Lung disease; Prognosis; Respiratory disease; Resource; Medicine; Project; Randomization; Welfare aids; Bronchus disease; Clinical trial; Evolution; Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; Peer review
• ISSN: 1470-2118; 1473-4893
• DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.10-3-223

Peer review has been widely employed within the NHS to facilitate health quality improvement but has not been rigorously evaluated. This article reports the largest randomised trial of peer review ever conducted in the UK. The peer review intervention was a reciprocal supportive exercise that included clinicians, hospital management, commissioners and patients which focused on the quality of the provision of four specific evidence-based aspects of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease care. Follow up at 12 months demonstrated few quantitative differences in the number or quality of services offered in the two groups. Qualitative data in contrast suggested many benefits of peer review in most but not all intervention units and some control teams. Findings suggest peer review in this format is a positive experience for most participants but is ineffective in some situations. Its longer term benefits and cost effectiveness require further study. The generic findings of this study have potential implications for the application of peer review throughout the NHS.