Comments on: AMNews: Jan. 5, 2009. Supreme Court asked to examine Texas peer review case … American Medical News http://gruntdoc.com/2009/01/amnews-jan-5-2009-supreme-court-asked-to-examine-texas-peer-review-case-american-medical-news.html Ramblings of an Emergency Physician in Texas Sat, 12 May 2012 12:36:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Goatwhacker http://gruntdoc.com/2009/01/amnews-jan-5-2009-supreme-court-asked-to-examine-texas-peer-review-case-american-medical-news.html/comment-page-1#comment-15675 Goatwhacker Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:00:58 +0000 http://gruntdoc.com/?p=3166#comment-15675 <i>I’d like to point out here that just because peer review is unhappy with someone doesn’t automatically result in adverse action, there’s usually the hospital Medical Board or Credentials Committee that has to actually impose a discipine, so there is some outside oversight (which relies on the peer review for the nuance of whether care was appropriate for their discipline). If this sounds incestuous it’s not supposed to, nor is it supposed to be in practice.</i> In smaller hospitals the physicians on Peer Review also tend to dominate the Credentials Committee and at times the Hospital Board. At it's best Peer Review is a great way to monitor and improve care, unfortunately like most things it's often not at it's best and is used as a tool in turf wars and stifling competition. In theory it's a great way for docs to work together as equals but in practice some docs are more equal than others. I have not run afoul of a peer review committee either but have seen them misused more than once, and the unlucky physicians seemed to have very little recourse. I’d like to point out here that just because peer review is unhappy with someone doesn’t automatically result in adverse action, there’s usually the hospital Medical Board or Credentials Committee that has to actually impose a discipine, so there is some outside oversight (which relies on the peer review for the nuance of whether care was appropriate for their discipline). If this sounds incestuous it’s not supposed to, nor is it supposed to be in practice.

In smaller hospitals the physicians on Peer Review also tend to dominate the Credentials Committee and at times the Hospital Board. At it’s best Peer Review is a great way to monitor and improve care, unfortunately like most things it’s often not at it’s best and is used as a tool in turf wars and stifling competition. In theory it’s a great way for docs to work together as equals but in practice some docs are more equal than others.

I have not run afoul of a peer review committee either but have seen them misused more than once, and the unlucky physicians seemed to have very little recourse.

]]>