External peer review can be a useful part of a quality improvement program. However, it can also be used for political and punitive purposes. The distinction between potentially useful and damaging review is largely an issue of the ethics of how it is done. The ethics of external peer review lie not only in the process itself, but also in the role of the pathologists performing the review. While there are many ethical issues involved in external peer review, the most important may be a dedication to due process, allowing the pathologist under review to respond to allegations, and an insistence on complete information prior to drawing conclusions. Well established criteria for external peer review may provide protection both for the pathologist under review against allegations of negligence or incompetence, but also for the reviewers against accusations of bad faith.
WyniaM.K.KurlanderJ.K.. Healthcare quality improvement: ethical and regulatory issues.Garrison (NY): The Hastings Center; c2007. Chapter 1, Physician ethics and participation in quality improvement: renewing a professional obligation; p 7–28.
11.
ToulminS.. Medical Institutions and their moral constraints. In: BulgerR.E.ReiserS.J., editors. Integrity in heallth care institutions: human environments for teaching, inquiry, and healing.Iowa City (IA): University of Iowa Press; 1990. p. 21–32.
12.
SteinhauserG.AdlassnigW.RischJ.A.. Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science.Theor Med Bioeth.2012 Oct; 33(5): 359–76.
13.
HerronD.M.. Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review.Surg Endosc.2012 Aug; 26(8): 2275–80.
14.
De OliveiraG.S.Jr.ChangR.KendallM.C.. Publication bias in the anesthesiology literature.Anesth Analg.2012 May; 114(5): 1042–8.
15.
GoodmanS.N.BerlinJ.FletcherS.W.FletcherR.H.. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine.Ann Intern Med.1994 Jul 1; 121(1): 11–21.
16.
SmithR.. Classical peer review: an empty gun.Breast Cancer Res.2010 Dec 20; 12 Suppl 4: S13.
17.
McCartyL.S.BorgertC.J.MihaichE.M.. Information quality in regulatory decision making: peer review versus good laboratory practice.Environ Health Perspect.2012 Jul; 120(7): 927–34.
18.
NicholsonJ.M.IoannidisJ.P.. Research grants: conform and be funded.Nature.2012 Dec 6; 492(7427): 34–6.
19.
AbdoulH.PerreyC.AmielP.. Peer review of grant applications: criteria used and qualitative study of reviewer practices.PLoS One.2012; 7(9): e46054.
20.
SchulpenT.W.LombartsK.M.. Quality improvement of paediatric care in the Netherlands.Arch Dis Child.2007 Jul; 92(7): 633–6.
21.
LombartsM.J.KlazingaN.S.RedekopK.K.. Measuring the perceived impact of facilitation on implementing recommendations from external assessment: lessons from the Dutch visitatie programme for medical specialists.J Eval Clin Pract.2005 Dec; 11(6): 587–97.
22.
LombartsM.J.Van WijmenF.C.. External peer review by medical specialist (visitatie) in a legal perspective.Eur J Health Law.2003 Mar; 10(1): 43–51.
23.
HysongS.J.TealC.R.KhanM.J.HaidetP.. Improving quality of care through improved audit and feedback.Implement Sci.2012 May 18; 7: 45.
24.
GouletJ.L.ErdosJ.KancirS.. Measuring performance directly using the veterans health administration electronic medical record: a comparison with external peer review.Med Care.2007 Jan; 45(1): 73–9.
25.
ChomaN.N.HuangR.L.DittusR.S.. Quality improvement initiatives improve hypertension care among veterans.Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes.2009 Jul; 2(4): 392–8.
26.
HayesT.E.BrandtJ.T.ChandlerW.L.. External peer review quality assurance testing in von Willebrand disease: the recent experience of the United States College of American Pathologists proficiency testing program.Semin Thromb Hemost.2006 Jul; 32(5): 499–504.
27.
HofhuisH.Van Den EndeC.H.De BakkerD.H.. Effects of visitation among allied health professionals.Int J Qual Health Care.2006 Dec; 18(6): 397–402.
28.
McMillanR.. Accessibility, feasibility and educational impact of a peer review process for general practitioner consultation skills.Qual Prim Care.2012; 20(2): 105–14.
29.
MannP.C.. Pathology peer review from the perspective of an external peer review pathologist.Toxicol Pathol.1996 Sep-Oct; 24(5): 650–3.
30.
PitmanM.B.DaveyD.D.FrableW.. Ethics and conduct committee report.ASC Bull. July2003; 40: 76–77.
31.
AlbertT.. Michigan neurosurgeon sues specialty society over suspension.Am Med News.2001; 44(6): 17.
32.
TurnerJ.A.. Going after ‘hired guns’: is improper expert witness testimony unprofessional conduct or the negligent practice of medicine?Spec Law Dig Health Care Law.2006 Aug; (328): 9–43.
33.
SandersJ.. Expert witness ethics.Fordham Law Rev.2007 Dec; 76(3): 1539–1584.
ShumanD.W.WhitakerE.ChampagneA.. An empirical examination of the use of expert witnesses in the courts – part II: a three city study.Jurimetrics J.1994; 34(2): 193–201.
HwangN.H.. Defaming a physician's career. The double edged sword of peer review privilege and immunity.J Leg Med.2004 Mar; 25(1): 95–109.
40.
FoucarE.. Pathology Expert witness testimony and pathology practice: a tale of 2 standards.Arch Pathol Lab Med.2005 Oct; 129(10): 1268–76.
41.
FolgerR.KonovskyM.A.CropanzanoR.. A due process metaphor for performance appraisal.Res Organ Behav.1992; 14: 129–177.
42.
ErdoganB.. Antecedents and consequences of justice perceptions in performance appraisals.Hum Resour Manag Rev.2002 Winter; 12(4): 555–578.
43.
KataokaH.C.ColeN.D.FlintD.A.. Due process model of procedural justice in performance appraisal: promotion versus termination scenarios.Psychol Rep.2006 Dec; 99(3): 819–32.
