Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 25, 2026
Guidelines for Elective Pediatric Fiberoptic Intubation
Published on: January 17, 2011
Quality in paediatric anaesthesia: a pilot study of interdepartmental peer review
P M Crean1, M A Stokes, C Williamson
1Department of Anaesthesia, Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children, Falls Road, Belfast BT12 6BE, UK. peter.crean@royalhospitals.n-i.nhs.uk
Insights
A pilot study assessed interdepartmental peer review for UK paediatric anaesthetic departments. The process successfully identified good practices and areas for improvement, with participants finding it valuable.
Area of Science:
- Medical quality improvement
- Healthcare management
Background:
- Establishing consistent standards in paediatric anaesthesia is crucial for patient safety.
- Interdepartmental collaboration can enhance the quality of care.
Purpose of the Study:
- To pilot a process for interdepartmental peer review of paediatric anaesthetic departments in the UK.
- To assess the effectiveness and value of such a review system.
Main Methods:
- Peer review visits conducted by multidisciplinary teams, including medical, non-medical, and lay members.
- Assessment of departments against established national standards for anaesthetic departments.
Main Results:
- Identified examples of good practice within departments.
- Highlighted specific areas requiring further development.
- Participants reported the process as a valuable use of time.
Conclusions:
- The interdepartmental peer review process is a useful tool for quality assessment in paediatric anaesthesia.
- The inclusion of lay members enhances the peer review process.
- Participants expressed enthusiasm for the continuation of this review system.
Abstract:
A pilot to assess a process of interdepartmental peer review of paediatric anaesthetic departments in the United Kingdom was undertaken. Departments were assessed in relation to the standards which should characterise anaesthetic departments throughout the country. Examples of good practice and areas for further development were identified. Peer review visits were conducted by teams which included medical and non-medical members. The importance of the inclusion of lay people in such visits is being increasingly recognised. All of those who participated in the process felt their time had been usefully spent, and they were enthusiastic for the process to continue.
