Skip Navigation



Rheumatology Advance Access published online on March 1, 2006
Rheumatology, doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kel042
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
45/9/1110    most recent
kel042v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Piper, H.
Right arrow Articles by Delamere, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Piper, H.
Right arrow Articles by Delamere, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Received September 23, 2005
Accepted January 13, 2006

Original Article

Experience of six years of a regional peer review scheme in rheumatology

H. Piper 1 *, A. B. Hassell 2, I. F. Rowe 3, and J. Delamere 4

1 Department of Rheumatology, University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Walsgrave Hospital, Coventry, UK
2 Staffordshire Rheumatology Centre, Haywood Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, UK
3 Highfield Unit, Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Worcester, UK
4 Department of Rheumatology, Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, UK

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
H. Piper, E-mail: hollypiper{at}hotmail.com


  Abstract

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.

Keywords: Peer review; Rheumatology..
on behalf of the West Midlands Rheumatology Service and Training Committee
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.