Department of Radiology, Seattle Children's Hospital, 4800 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98105, USA.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013 Jan;200(1):132-7. doi: 10.2214/AJR.12.9580.
The objective of our study was to categorize radiologist peer review comments and evaluate their functions within the context of a comprehensive quality assurance (QA) program.
All randomly entered radiology peer review comments at our institution were compiled over a 1-year period (January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011). A Web-based commercially available software package was used to query the comments, which were then exported into a spreadsheet. Each comment was then placed into a single most appropriate category based on consensus decision of two board-certified pediatric radiologists. QA scores associated with each comment were recorded.
A total of 427 peer review comments were evaluated. The majority of comments (85.9%) were entered voluntarily with QA scores of 1. A classification system was devised that augments traditional error classification. Seven broad comment categories were identified: errors of observation (25.5%), errors of interpretation (5.6%), inadequate patient data gathering (3.7%), errors of communication (9.6%), interobserver variability (21.3%), informational and educational feedback (23.0%), and complimentary (11.2%).
Comment-enhanced peer review expands traditional diagnostic error classification, may identify errors that were underscored, provides continuous educational feedback for participants, and promotes a collegial environment.
我们研究的目的是对放射科同行评议意见进行分类，并在全面质量保证（QA）计划的背景下评估其功能。
在我们机构，所有随机输入的放射科同行评议意见在一年期间（2011 年 1 月 1 日至 2011 年 12 月 31 日）被编译。使用基于网络的商业上可用的软件包查询意见，然后将其导出到电子表格中。根据两位经过董事会认证的儿科放射科医生的共识决定，将每条意见归入最合适的类别。记录与每条意见相关的 QA 评分。
共评估了 427 条同行评议意见。大多数意见（85.9%）是自愿输入的，QA 评分为 1。设计了一个分类系统，扩展了传统的错误分类。确定了七个广泛的评论类别：观察错误（25.5%）、解释错误（5.6%）、患者数据收集不足（3.7%）、沟通错误（9.6%）、观察者间变异性（21.3%）、信息和教育反馈（23.0%）和补充意见（11.2%）。
增强的评论式同行评议扩展了传统的诊断错误分类，可以识别被强调的错误，为参与者提供持续的教育反馈，并促进了合作的环境。
