Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Peer review.

E H Livingston1, J D Harwell

  • 1Department of Surgery, VA Greater Los Angeles Health Care System, and the UCLA School of Medicine, Box 95-6904, Los Angeles, California 90095-6904, USA. ELivingston@metnet.ucla.edu

American Journal of Surgery
|September 28, 2001
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Obesity and abdominal hernia in ambulatory patients, 2018-2023.

Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery·2024
Same author

Climbing and Clinging of Urban Lizards are Differentially Affected by Morphology, Temperature, and Substrate.

Integrative organismal biology (Oxford, England)·2023
Same author

Reduced length of stay by implementation of a clinical pathway for bariatric surgery in an academic health care center.

The American surgeon·2002
Same author

Biexponential model for predicting weight loss after gastric surgery for obesity.

The Journal of surgical research·2001
Same author

Alternative mRNA splicing in colon cancer causes loss of expression of neural cell adhesion molecule.

Surgery·2001
Same author

Human colon cancer cells deficient in DCC produce abnormal transcripts in progression of carcinogenesis.

Digestive diseases and sciences·2001
Same journal

Women with firearm injuries: A multicenter mixed-methods study.

American journal of surgery·2026
Same journal

SBAS presidential address: A surgeon-scientist's journey from haptic science to digital performance metrics.

American journal of surgery·2026
Same journal

Using Dr. Google and AI to stay informed.

American journal of surgery·2026
Same journal

Revealing the sex divide: Primary hyperparathyroidism across the American population.

American journal of surgery·2026
Same journal

Pressure points: A pilot study using the NASA-TLX tool to measure the intensity of Acute care surgery work.

American journal of surgery·2026
Same journal

Raised to run faster, not to heal moral injury and the surgeon's capacity to lead.

American journal of surgery·2026
See all related articles

Peer review quality assurance has shifted from evaluative to punitive due to legal protections and data banks. Reforms are needed to restore peer review

Area of Science:

  • Medical quality assurance
  • Healthcare law
  • Professional regulation

Background:

  • Peer review is critical for maintaining medical quality.
  • A 1980s lawsuit against peer reviewers, motivated by economic interests, led to significant legal changes.
  • The Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) was enacted in response.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To analyze the impact of legal reforms on the peer review process.
  • To examine how the Health Care Quality Improvement Act and the National Practitioner's Data Bank have altered peer review.
  • To advocate for reforms to re-establish peer review's quality improvement function.

Main Methods:

  • Historical analysis of legal precedents and legislation impacting physician peer review.
  • Examination of the consequences of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act and the National Practitioner's Data Bank.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Review of the evolution of peer review from an evaluative to a punitive system.

    • Main Results:

    • The Health Care Quality Improvement Act granted broad legal immunity to peer reviewers.
    • The National Practitioner's Data Bank created a public record of malpractice and privileging actions.
    • These factors have transformed peer review into a punitive process, potentially hindering quality improvement.

    Conclusions:

    • The current legal framework surrounding peer review, including immunity and data bank reporting, has inadvertently made the process punitive rather than purely evaluative.
    • Reforms are necessary to ensure that peer review effectively improves and assures medical quality without posing undue risks to physicians.