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