Clinical peer Review; A mandatory process with potential inherent bias in desperate need of reform

References

• Vyas D, Hozain AE. Clinical peer review in the USA: history, legal development and subsequent abuse. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(21):6357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards MT. Clinical peer review program self-evaluation for US hospitals. Am J Med Qual. 2010;25:474–480.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore IN, Pichert JW, Hickson GB, et al. Rethinking peer review: detecting and addressing medical malpractice claims risk. Vand L Rev. 1175;c2006.
   Google Scholar
• DeBoer MJ. Access without limits-revisiting barriers and boundaries after the affordable care act. Conn L Rev. 1239;c2011.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Health and Human Services. Medical licensure and discipline: an overview; 1986.
   Google Scholar
• Professional Staff Peer Review Policy, Addendum A, Policies & Procedures, Professional Staff, Providence Health & Services – Oregon.
   Google Scholar
• How FS. The joint commission standards expand hospital peer review. Patient Saf Qual Healthcare. 2007;c2007:14–16.
   Google Scholar
• “The Joint Commission Perspectives: The Official Newsletter of The Joint Commission. August 2019/Volume 39/Number 8.”
   Google Scholar
• Edwards MT, Benjamin EM. The process of peer review in US hospitals. J Clin Outcomes Manage. c2009:461–467.
   Google Scholar
• Goldberg BA. The peer review privilege: a law in search of a valid policy. Am JL Med. c1984:151.
   Google Scholar
• Chalifoux R Jr. So what is a sham peer review? Medscape J Med. c2005:47.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Government Printing Office. Health care quality improvement act of 1986, HR 5540; house of representatives, 99th Cong, 2nd Sess, September 17, 1986. .”
   Google Scholar
• Scheutzow SO. State medical peer review: high cost but no benefit-is it time for a change. Am JL Med. c1999:7.
   Google Scholar
• Goldman RL. The reliability of peer assessments of quality of care. Jama. c1992:958–960.
   Google Scholar
• Hofer TP, Bernstein SJ, DeMonner S, et al. Discussion between reviewers does not improve reliability of peer review of hospital quality. Med Care. c2000:152–161.
   Google Scholar
• West JC. Medical staff issues: procedural due process sufficient for HCQIA immunity. Meyer v. Sunrise Hospital, 22 P. 3d 1142 (Nev. 2001). J Healthcare Risk Manage. c2002:32–33.
   Google Scholar
• Waters TM, Warnecke RB, Parsons J, et al. The role of the national practitioner data bank in the credentialing process. Am J Med Qual. c2006:30–39.
   Google Scholar
• Livingston EH, Harwell JD. Peer review. Am J Surg. c2001:103–109.
   Google Scholar
• Parmley WW. Clinical peer review or competitive hatchet job. J Am Coll Cardiol. c2000:2347.
   Google Scholar
• Kinney ED. Hospital peer review of physicians: does statutory immunity increase risk of unwarranted professional injury. Mich St UJ Med L. c2009:57.
   Google Scholar
• Pfifferling JH, Meyer DN, Wang CJ. Sham peer review: perversions of a powerful process. Physician Exec. c2008:24–29.
   Google Scholar
• Kadar N. How courts are protecting unjustified peer review actions against physicians by hospitals. J Am Phys Surg. 2011;16:17–24.
   Google Scholar
• Saposnik G, Redelmeier D, Ruff CC, et al. Cognitive biases associated with medical decisions: a systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016;16(1):1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Crowley RS, Legowski E, Medvedeva O, et al. Automated detection of heuristics and biases among pathologists in a computer-based system. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2013;18(3):343–363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hugh TB, Dekker SW. Hindsight bias and outcome bias in the social construction of medical negligence: a review. J Law Med. c2009:846–857.
   Google Scholar
• Caplan RA, Posner KL, Cheney FW. Effect of outcome on physician judgments of appropriateness of care. Jama. 1991;265(15):1957–1960.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron J, Hershey JC. Outcome bias in decision evaluation. J Pers Soc Psychol. c1988:569.
   Google Scholar
• Russo JE, Schoemaker PJ. Managing overconfidence. Sloan Manage Rev. c1992:7–17.
   Google Scholar
• Fischhoff B. Hindsight ≠ foresight: the effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. BMJ Qual Saf. c2003:304–311.
   Google Scholar
• Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Facts and fears: understanding perceived risk. Societal Risk Assess. c1980:181–216.
   Google Scholar