Luft L L, Newman D E
Hosp Community Psychiatry. 1977 Dec;28(12):889-94. doi: 10.1176/ps.28.12.889.
Eighty therapists, the entire attending staff of a community mental health center, were interviewed to assess their perceptions of the center's interdisciplinary peer review system after it had been in operation for three and a half years. While many expressed reservations about parts of the system, about two-thirds felt that the review committee generally maintained an appropriate balance between quality of care and allocation of funds. More than 90 per cent found peer review an educational experience, and more than half said they would now choose to present casses to the committee even if not required to do so. Fifteen per cent felt they had experienced bias because of the professional disciplines of the reviewers. After presenting additional findings, the authors tell why they believe this particular system has a high degree of acceptance.
在一个社区心理健康中心的跨学科同行评审系统运行三年半后,研究人员采访了该中心全体80名治疗师,以评估他们对该系统的看法。虽然许多人对该系统的某些部分持保留意见,但约三分之二的人认为评审委员会总体上在护理质量和资金分配之间保持了适当的平衡。超过90%的人认为同行评审是一次学习经历,超过一半的人表示,即使不要求,他们现在也会选择向委员会提交病例。15%的人觉得他们因为评审人员的专业学科而受到了偏见。在展示了更多研究结果后,作者阐述了他们认为这个特定系统具有高度认可度的原因。