Skip to main content

Table 1 Mean ratings and distribution of reviews across conditions

From: Profiling quality of care: Is there a role for peer review?

Reviewer

 

HTN ‡

COPD §

Diabetes

Acute Care

Total

Mean rating (s.d)

A

 

11

9

8

12

40

3.28 (1.11)

B

 

15

12

8

10

45

3.13 (1.20)

C

 

14

7

9

11

41

3.15 (1.37)

D

 

13

9

9

12

43

3.58 (1.61)

E

 

11

9

7

12

39

3.33 (0.58)

F

 

12

8

11

10

41

2.24 (1.18)

G

 

10

8

9

9

36

3.78 (1.29)

H

 

10

8

8

8

34

3.15 (0.93)

I

 

14

10

12

6

42

3.26 (0.91)

J

 

17

10

9

17

53

3.40 (0.77)

K

 

12

8

8

9

37

3.38 (0.59)

L

 

14

7

9

15

45

3.29 (1.38)

 

Total

153

105

107

131

496

 

# unique records †

 

56

40

37

59

70

 

Mean rating (s.d)*

 

3.46(1.20)

3.09(0.96)

3.46(1.30)

2.94(1.07)

 

3.25 (1.16)

  1. *Ratings are on a 1–6 scale where 1 = very good care and 6=very poor care. † Each patient record may have been reviewed for more than one condition. Thus 56 out of the 70 total records were reviewed for the quality of hypertension care. A total of 153 reviews of the 56 different patient records were done by 12 different reviewers. ‡ Hypertension § Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease