| Many hospital CEOs, medical directors and risk | | | | damage to physician's careers. |
| managers are hesitant to consider outsourcing | | | | Done correctly, peer review takes a systematic |
| peer reviews, because they simply have never | | | | approach to determining the reasons for sentinel |
| done so in the past. They have concerns about | | | | events that have undesirable outcomes. The |
| invasive scrutiny by external organizations, | | | | focus is not on "good doctor or bad doctor" |
| potential loss of control, the possible polarizing | | | | issues, but on a broader range of questions such |
| effect on their staff and a fear that the focus will | | | | as: |
| be on finding and punishing "bad" doctors. | | | | Was there adequate support? |
| Because of inherent conflicts of interest that exist | | | | Were the protocols and processes defined? |
| in hospitals' peer review process, hospital quality | | | | Do we have the right physician expertise and |
| management systems need to ensure objectivity | | | | training to consistently produce positive patient |
| and adherence to accepted medical protocols. | | | | outcomes? |
| For this reason, many hospital groups are | | | | Do we need better trained assistance? |
| proactively moving toward Independent Review | | | | The true goal of the peer review process is not |
| Organizations for unbiased peer reviews. Not only | | | | to point fingers or punish people, but to improve |
| are they seeing this as a best practice, but they | | | | patient safety by identifying quality management |
| also gain other benefits, including rapid resolution | | | | issues and fixing them. |
| of sensitive cases, heading off high-profile lawsuits, | | | | Download our free white paper Best Practices in |
| reducing internal polarization and preventing | | | | Hospital Peer Review. |