Rheumatology Advance Access originally published online on March 1, 2006
Rheumatology 2006 45(9):1110-1115; doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kel042
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Experience of six years of a regional peer review scheme in rheumatology
Department of Rheumatology, University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Walsgrave Hospital, Coventry, 1Staffordshire Rheumatology Centre, Haywood Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, 2Highfield Unit, Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Worcester and 3Department of Rheumatology, Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, UK.
Correspondence to: H. Piper, Department of Rheumatology, University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Walsgrave Hospital, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry CV2 2DX, UK. E-mail: hollypiper{at}hotmail.com
Objective. Following discussions on peer review by the British Society for Rheumatology, the West Midlands Rheumatology Service and Training Committee established a peer review scheme for the West Midlands in 1998. We report our initial 6 yr of experience, during which all 14 units have been visited.
Methods. A rotating programme of visits was organized. Following this first cycle of peer review, questionnaires were sent to all consultants and senior allied health professionals in each visited unit and to all members of each visiting team to evaluate the process.
Results. There was clear consensus amongst staff from both visited units and visiting teams that a peer review visit is worthwhile and constructive. It is a good opportunity for education and exchange of ideas between staff and to promote the multidisciplinary team in rheumatology. Most recommendations from the reports were considered necessary. The most frequent recommendations were for an increase in consultants and therapy staff. Appointing further consultants has been successful. Opinion was only divided on whether the reports were viewed seriously by Trusts, whether peer review should be regional or national, and how to accurately assess the quality, as well as the quantity, of care provided. Staff would support further cycles of peer review visits.
Conclusions. This has been a successful initiative and a positive learning experience for all staff involved. Specifically, it helped to obtain more staff and secure facilities. We recommend developing this scheme and promoting it to other regions.
KEY WORDS: Peer review, Rheumatology.