Abstract
Three court decisions reviewing medical peer re view conducted in hospitals were discussed at length in part III of this article. In their opinions the courts gave at least tacit approval to the procedures followed in the hospitals, and they accepted that an evidentiary basis for adverse action against the physicians was present. But not all medical peer review in hospitals resulting in adverse actions is found satisfactory when challenged in court, and the most prominent litigation in the decade of the 1980s concerning med ical peer review, Patrick v. Burget (1), is testimony to the potential for its perversion.
Part II adverted to the potential for bias or lack of objectivity in assessing physician performance. Part I mentioned the problem of bias in the context of peer review of articles for publication and of research grant proposals.
The objectives of Part IV are: (1) to examine the concern about bias in medical peer review and to indicate how it may be lessened, if not eliminated; (2) to address further the difficulty created by the rela tive lack of valid criteria to employ in medical peer review; (3) to review the extent of protection from liability afforded to participants in medical peer re view ; and (4) to describe the changes that should be anticipated in review of medical services in the fu ture.
Before addressing these subjects it is essential to remind the reader that medical peer review is not conducted primarily for disciplinary purposes; rather, its purpose is to evaluate the quality of care. If the care is below the desired level, then steps to modify practitioner professional conduct by provid ing information about the effectiveness of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, and imposing limits on practice if necessary, are warranted. Thus, while adverse credentialing decisions may follow medical peer review, they should not be viewed as its objec tive.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.