peer review

(redirected from Peer-review)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Legal, Encyclopedia.

peer review

 
1. a basic component of a quality assurance program in which the results of health care given to a specific patient population are evaluated according to health-wellness outcome criteria established by peers of the professionals delivering the care. Peer review is focused on the patient and on the results of care given by a group of professionals rather than on individual professional practitioners. Review by peer groups is promoted by professional organizations as a means of maintaining standards of care. Retrospective review critically evaluates the results of work that has been completed; it is done for purposes of improving future practice. The source of data is medical records which document the full continuum of care provided and each patient's response to that care. Concurrent review takes place at the time the care is being given. It critically examines each patient's progress toward desired health-wellness outcomes. Sources of data for concurrent review are the patient's record and interview, observation, and inspection of the patient. A major advantage of concurrent review is that it provides the opportunity to improve care so that patients benefit from the review and recommended changes in ongoing care.
2. in the nursing interventions classification, a nursing intervention defined as the systematic evaluation of a peer's performance compared with professional standards of practice.
3. Evaluation of a manuscript or research proposal by professional colleagues.

peer re·view

(pēr rē-vyū'),
Process of evaluating research proposals, manuscripts submitted for publication, and abstracts submitted for presentation at a scientific meeting, whereby these are judged for technical and scientific merit by other scientists in the same field.

peer review1

an appraisal by professional coworkers of equal status of the way an individual health professional conducts practice, education, or research. The appraisal uses accepted standards as measures against which performance is weighed. See also Professional Standards Review Organization.

peer review2

a nursing intervention from the Nursing Interventions Classification (NIC) defined as systematic evaluation of a peer's performance compared with professional standards of practice. See also Nursing Interventions Classification.

peer review

The objective evaluation of the quality of a physician's or a scientist's performance by colleagues Medtalk The evaluation of a practitioner's professional performance, including identification of opportunities for improving the quality, necessity, and appropriateness–suitability of care; peer review organizations–PROs in the US contract with the CMS, formerly HCFA. See Peer-reviewed journal, Peer review organization.

peer re·view

(pēr rĕ-vyū')
Assessment of research proposals, manuscripts submitted for publication, or a physician's clinical practice by other physicians or scientists in the same field.

peer re·view

(pēr rĕ-vyū')
Assessment of research proposals, manuscripts submitted for publication, or a physician's clinical practice by other physicians or scientists in the same field.

peer review,

n 1. a retrospective consideration or an examination by one or more individuals of equal standing or rank.
n 2. a process established to provide for review by licensed dental professionals of the care by a dental professional for a single patient; disputes regarding fees; cases submitted by carriers and initiated by patients or dental professionals; and quality of care and appropriateness of treatment.
peer review organization (PRO),
n an organization established by an amendment of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) to provide for the review of medical services furnished primarily in a hospital setting or in conjunction with care provided under the Medicare and Medicaid programs. In addition to their review and monitoring functions, these entities can invoke sanctions, penalties, or other corrective actions for noncompliance in organization standards.
peer review system,
n a professionally sponsored and operated system for the rendering of professional judgment on disagreements between or among dental professionals, patients, or fiscal intermediaries, respecting quality of care and related matters.

peer review

judgments of other scientists who work in the same field on the merits of papers submitted for publication, applications for reseach funding,
References in periodicals archive ?
Several sources emphasize the benefits and necessity of a peer-review form for improved professionalism and quality in the review process.
One area that affects both authors and reviewers is the length of the peer-review process.
This Note argues that the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit should become the first circuit to recognize the medical peer-review privilege in cases that include federal and state claims.
Part I of this Note provides the common elements of medical peer-review statutes and subsequently compares those laws of the First Circuit states.
is apparently not a routine and universal component of the peer-review process.
1) It provides interesting insights into the peer-review process as it currently exists, and it highlights some of the problems and shortcomings that warrant further consideration.
The NEA advises affiliates to make this a prerequisite when setting up a peer-review program.
Peer-review programs require a high level of union-management trust and cooperation, which is sometimes difficult to achieve.
It is the first to combine user-contributed content with the ordering capabilities of a peer-review ranking system to make it easy for consumers to gain insight quickly from subjective content.
This could be a particularly compelling document if the working group concludes that the existing peer-review system is in fact fundamentally flawed.
Peer-review validity lies in the ability to predict which articles or proposals will stimulate the most progress in a given field of study.
Though serious flaws mar the current system, the recent findings and proposals seem unlikely to spur a new wave of peer-review research and reform, says Michigan psychiatrist Adams.