Tracey J M
Department of General Practice, University of Auckland, School of Medicine.
N Z Med J. 1991 Jan 23;104(904):8-10.
Two peer review groups of ten general practitioners each reviewed their management of headache and fatigue. Each group used internal standards which they had set for the review of one condition and external standards set by the other group for the other condition. Data for the review was collected from the general practitioners' case notes and presented to them. The following year their management was again reviewed. The attitudes of the general practitioners to the use of both internal and external standards in peer review were measured using written questionnaire. There was no statistically significant difference in attitude to the two different types of standards. The attitudes of the general practitioners to external standards from a variety of sources were also measured. External standards developed by other peer review groups of general practitioners were significantly more acceptable (p less than 0.05) than standards developed by hospital specialists or the Department of Health.
两个由十名全科医生组成的同行评审小组分别对他们对头痛和疲劳的治疗进行了评审。每个小组使用他们为一种病症的评审所设定的内部标准,以及另一小组为另一种病症所设定的外部标准。评审数据从全科医生的病例记录中收集并呈现给他们。次年,再次对他们的治疗进行评审。使用书面问卷测量了全科医生对同行评审中使用内部和外部标准的态度。对两种不同类型标准的态度没有统计学上的显著差异。还测量了全科医生对来自各种来源的外部标准的态度。由其他全科医生同行评审小组制定的外部标准比医院专家或卫生部制定的标准更能被接受(p小于0.05)。