Consideration of peer review is timely, given that formalisation of peer review processes is one of the responses the psychiatric profession could make to increasing calls for accountability from within and without the profession. The establishment of formal peer review evoked strong, often hostile, responses among psychiatrists in the United States, reflecting considerable underlying anxiety. This paper examines the responses to formal peer review in psychiatrists from a psychodynamic perspective.
References
1.
ShepherdG.A brief history of the American Psychiatric Association's involvement in peer review. In: HamiltonJ, ed. Psychiatric peer review: Prelude and promise. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. 1985.
2.
GreenSA.The process of reviewing peers. General Hospital Psychiatry1989; 11:264–267.
3.
Panel survey of psychoanalytical practice 1978: some trends and implications. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association1978; 26:615–631.
4.
GabbardGOTakahashiTDavidsonJBauman-BorkMEnsrothK.A psychodynamic perspective on the clinical impact of insurance review. American Journal of Psychiatry1991; 148:318–323.
5.
RudominerHS.Peer review, third-party payment and the analytic situation: a case report. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association1981; 32:773–795.
6.
LuftLLSampsonLMNewmanDE.Effect of peer review on outpatient psychotherapy: therapist and patient follow-up survey. American Journal of Psychiatry1976; 133:891–895.
7.
ChestnutWJWilsonSWrightRHZemlichMJ.Problems, protests and proposals. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 1987; 18: 107–112.
8.
OffenkrantzW.Psychodynamic aspects of peer review. In: HamiltonJ, ed. Psychiatric peer review: prelude and promise. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 1985.
9.
El-GuebalyN.Peer review: empirical data base and practical implications. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry1988; 33:645–649.
