Peer review protection: Pish-Posh or pivotal policy?

Mohammed Al Tarhuni, Richard Duszak, Robert Optican
{"title":"Peer review protection: Pish-Posh or pivotal policy?","authors":"Mohammed Al Tarhuni, Richard Duszak, Robert Optican","doi":"10.1067/j.cpradiol.2024.10.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Healthcare Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) of 1986 is a pivotal federal mandate designed to enhance medical care quality through effective professional peer review. Importantly, it offers legal immunity to reviewers under specified conditions and mandates the reporting of adverse actions to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB). This article explores the implementation of peer review processes in hospitals and the potentially severe ramifications of failure to report, using the scenario of a diagnostic radiologist performing high-end vascular interventional procedures, whose performance came under scrutiny, highlighting the intersection of federal and state laws, accreditation standards, hospital policies, and physician professionalism standards and reporting duties.</p>","PeriodicalId":93969,"journal":{"name":"Current problems in diagnostic radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current problems in diagnostic radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2024.10.002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Healthcare Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) of 1986 is a pivotal federal mandate designed to enhance medical care quality through effective professional peer review. Importantly, it offers legal immunity to reviewers under specified conditions and mandates the reporting of adverse actions to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB). This article explores the implementation of peer review processes in hospitals and the potentially severe ramifications of failure to report, using the scenario of a diagnostic radiologist performing high-end vascular interventional procedures, whose performance came under scrutiny, highlighting the intersection of federal and state laws, accreditation standards, hospital policies, and physician professionalism standards and reporting duties.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
同行评审保护:小儿科还是关键政策?
1986 年的《医疗质量改进法案》(HCQIA)是一项重要的联邦授权,旨在通过有效的专业同行评审提高医疗质量。重要的是,该法案在特定条件下为评审者提供了法律豁免权,并规定必须向国家执业医师数据库(NPDB)报告不良行为。本文以一名从事高端血管介入手术的放射诊断医师的工作表现受到审查为例,探讨了同行评审程序在医院的实施情况以及未报告可能造成的严重后果,突出强调了联邦和州法律、评审标准、医院政策、医师职业标准和报告职责之间的交叉。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The "pseudo-pulmonary AVM sign": an aid to the diagnosis of histoplasmosis and differentiation from pulmonary arteriovenous malformations. A stroke imaging protocol in patients with a history of contrast-induced anaphylaxis. Large language models as an academic resource for radiologists stepping into artificial intelligence research. Assessing radiologist performance. Tumor mutational burden as a marker for radiologic response to immune checkpoint inhibitors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1