Peer review is meant to be a process that evaluates the care that clinicians provide. It is considered a Quality Assurance program which means it is protected from discovery in cases of litigation. It is meant to be a method to evaluate the care provided and determine if the standard of care was met. It is NOT meant to be a punitive process, but I think if you ask most clinicians who have been through the process, they would tell you that it felt punitive and judgmental. And how would it not? The peer review committee meets and knows the outcome of the case and now can seem like Monday morning quarterbacks….judging people with all the beauty of hindsight.
In an ideal system, the committee will try and understand why the decisions made sense to the provider at the moment in which they made the decision. Further, if a busy provider only has a rare case make it’s way to peer review, even if the standard of care is felt not to have been met, it is one case among many and there is generally no concern about the competence of that provider. It is only when multiple cases make it to peer review over a fairly short time period that questions about the abilities of the provider might arise. In such situations the provider can receive close monitoring and if there remain concerns, additional training can be offered, though this may result in a limitation of privileges.
Yet, the important point here is that peer review is not ever meant to be punitive. I think it feels that way because so many clinicians feel that their profession is their identity. A case judged as not meeting standards can feel deeply personal.
Wondering what experiences others have had with their peer review processes.