Beatson J, Rushford N, Halasz G, Lancaster J, Prager S
Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1996 Oct;30(5):643-52. doi: 10.3109/00048679609062660.
This paper presents the findings from a questionnaire-based survey of psychiatrists designed to elucidate the positive and negative aspects of group peer review and its perceived place in accountability procedures, and to provide information about how accountability through group peer review might be improved.
Three hundred and eighty-eight psychiatrists were surveyed via mailout questionnaire. Demographic data, details of groups, and perceptions of beneficial and detrimental effects of group peer review were sought from group participants and non-participants. Attitudes of participants were compared with those of non-participants. Features of groups related to satisfaction in participants were examined.
The majority of the 170 respondents participating in groups regarded peer review as a means of maintaining and improving skills, sharing ideas and methods, receiving constructive criticism and feedback, of educational benefit and an important source of professional accountability. Non-participants, while less positive overall, responded equally that participation in peer review groups would be an effective response to accountability procedures. Potential detrimental effects and problems with the functioning of peer review groups were elucidated.
Group peer review contributes significantly to professional accountability and education in well-functioning groups. Further strategies for the facilitation of group functioning and for the processing of problems arising in group peer review need to be developed to optimise its contribution to the maintenance and improvement of professional standards.
本文介绍了一项针对精神科医生的问卷调查结果，该调查旨在阐明团体同行评审的积极和消极方面及其在问责程序中被感知到的地位，并提供有关如何通过团体同行评审改进问责制的信息。
通过邮寄问卷对388名精神科医生进行了调查。从团体参与者和非参与者那里收集人口统计学数据、团体细节以及对团体同行评审的有益和有害影响的看法。将参与者的态度与非参与者的态度进行比较。研究了与参与者满意度相关的团体特征。
170名参与团体的受访者中，大多数人将同行评审视为维持和提高技能、分享想法和方法、接受建设性批评和反馈的一种方式，具有教育意义且是专业问责的重要来源。非参与者虽然总体上积极性较低，但也同样认为参与同行评审团体将是对问责程序的有效回应。阐明了同行评审团体运作中的潜在有害影响和问题。
在运作良好的团体中，团体同行评审对专业问责和教育有重大贡献。需要制定进一步的策略来促进团体运作以及处理团体同行评审中出现的问题，以优化其对维持和提高专业标准的贡献。
