Tip of the week: Reduce bias in peer review by understanding where it stems from
Medical Staff Leader Connection, August 5, 2010
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Medical Staff Leader Connection!
Medical staffs know that the peer review process is not free of bias, but what they might not know is that bias goes far beyond being a partner or competitor to the physician being reviewed. There are many sources of bias, including:
- Fear of retribution from a colleague, either personally, professionally, or economically
- Fear that an adverse peer review judgment will have a negative effect on a colleague’s professional and personal life
- Anger toward a competitor or colleague for a perceived wrong that deserves retribution
- Desire to protect or shield a colleague, partner, employer, and/or employee from potential damage to his or her reputation or standing
- Desire to protect or shield a group of individuals (e.g., department, division, private enterprise) from potential damage to reputation or standing)
- Certainty regarding analysis despite subsequent evidence to the contrary
- Selective elimination of information that does not confirm an initial analysis or impression
- A tendency to base judgments on information that is readily available, most recent, or that contains
- Strong emotional content
- Inadvertently linking current circumstances to patterns or perceptions established in the past
- Maintaining an irrational commitment toward an issue, despite mounting evidence to the contrary
- Inappropriately ascribing a pattern to random events
- Inappropriately surmising a decision or action based on retrospective analysis
- Overestimating one’s ability to judge and analyze a situation correctly, despite evidence to the contrary
This week’s tip is adapted from Peer Review Best Practices: Case Studies and Lessons Learned by Robert J. Marder, MD, CMSL, and Jonathan H. Burroughs, MD, FACPE, CPE, FACEP, CMSL, published by HCPro.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Medical Staff Leader Connection!
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- News and briefs: Oklahoma Osteopathic Association against residency bill change
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- E-mailed
-
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Q&A tackles coding questions about injections and infusions
- Joint Commission Center announces handoff communication solutions
- Inside best practice: Reduce patient falls with a stoplight
- Identify modifiable risk factors to prevent patient falls
- Hospitalist-surgeon comanagement has no effect on outcomes
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Case Management Monthly, June 2012
- Searched
