Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us

Clinical Medicine Journal

  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
RCP Journals
Home
  • Log in
  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us
Advanced

Clinical Medicine Journal

clinmedicine Logo
  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

Endorsement of peer review

Holly John, Nicola Erb and Ian F Rowe
Download PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.10-6-639a
Clin Med December 2010
Holly John
Specialist registrar in rheumatology, Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicola Erb
Consultant rheumatologist, Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ian F Rowe
Consultant rheumatologist, Worcestershire Royal Hospital NHS Trust
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Editor – We read with interest the paper by Roberts et al (Clin Med June 2010 pp 223–7) describing their positive qualitative experience of peer review in respiratory medicine. We would like to further endorse the peer-review process based on our experiences in rheumatology.

In rheumatology, peer-review programmes are encouraged on a regional basis, using a nationally agreed proforma developed by the British Society for Rheumatology and the British Health Professionals in Rheumatology based on evidence-based clinical guidelines. Within the West Midlands region the cycle of multidisciplinary peer review visits occur over a five-year period. Analysis of this programme demonstrated many qualitative benefits, including perceptions that peer review helped obtain more consultant posts, secure day case facilities, set strategies for the next five years, focus managerial requirements and foster a positive learning environment where strengths could be transferred between units. Quantitative analysis revealed many of the recommendations of the peer-review reports had been implemented. It was agreed that peer review was a worthwhile and constructive component of continuing professional development.1 For some units there was a five-year interval between their peer review and our study which may explain why we were able to detect improvements in staffing and facilities; we agree with Roberts et al that their 12-month follow-up period may have been too short to capture changes in their respiratory services.

Roberts et al describe difficulties in recruiting patients into peer-review teams. In our most recent cycle of 11 peer-review visits we were able to recruit a lay person (patient or carer) onto each reviewing team but only seven visits went ahead with lay involvement, due to unexpected ill health of the lay person or their family (data unpublished).

Roberts et al raised the issue of the cost-effectiveness of peer review. We would suggest that our regional approach over a longer period minimises the organisation required, and that a one-day visit every five years may be a relatively low cost exercise for staff for a clinical governance activity which may yield significant potential benefits including multidisciplinary education, revalidation, and improving patient care.

Footnotes

  • Please submit letters for the editor's consideration within three weeks of receipt of the Journal. Letters should ideally be limited to 350 words, and sent by email to: clinicalmedicine{at}rcplondon.ac.uk

  • Royal College of Physicians

Reference

    1. Piper H
    , Hassell AB, Rowe IF, Delamere J, West Midlands Rheumatology Service and Training Committee. Experience of six years of a regional peer review scheme in rheumatology. Rheum 2006; 45:1110–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous articleNext article

Article Tools

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Endorsement of peer review
Holly John, Nicola Erb, Ian F Rowe
Clinical Medicine Dec 2010, 10 (6) 639-640; DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.10-6-639a

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Endorsement of peer review
Holly John, Nicola Erb, Ian F Rowe
Clinical Medicine Dec 2010, 10 (6) 639-640; DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.10-6-639a
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • Reference
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • JAK-inhibition as a therapeutic strategy for refractory primary systemic vasculitides
  • Response
  • Functional disorders and chronic pain
Show more Letters to the editor

Similar Articles

Navigate this Journal

  • Journal Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive

Related Links

  • ClinMed - Home
  • FHJ - Home
clinmedicine Footer Logo
  • Home
  • Journals
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
HighWire Press, Inc.

Follow Us:

  • Follow HighWire Origins on Twitter
  • Visit HighWire Origins on Facebook

Copyright © 2021 by the Royal College of Physicians