An exploration of the quality of peer review group activities within Australasia.

OBJECTIVE

To describe a two-phase study of the structure of Australasian psychiatrist peer review groups. METHOD (Phase one): Initially, information was sought from chairs/coordinators of psychiatrist peer review groups regarding the nature and organisation of their group. RESULTS (Phase one): One hundred and three questionnaires were returned describing a number of models of peer review. Three principal models were identified: a teaching hospital model, a private practice model, and a private institution model. METHOD (Phase two): The second-phase questionnaire sought information on the quality of the review, using six proposed standards developed by the Quality Assurance Committee of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. RESULTS (Phase two): Many groups indicated that four of the proposed standards (those relating to documentation, having clear goals, reviewing actual clinical cases, and rigorous protection of confidentiality) were either already being followed or would be relatively easy to implement. The remaining two proposed standards (including structure, process and outcome dimensions of health care in the case discussion, and the use of explicit criteria) presented more difficulty.

CONCLUSION

The application of such standards to peer review group meetings should assist groups to provide a forum for presentation and evaluation of clinical work where participants know they will be challenged in an environment which is both supportive and educational.