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

Table 1 Mean ratings and distribution of reviews across conditions

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)

*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

ISSN: 1472-6963