Electronic IR Group Peer Review and Learning Performed during Daily Clinical Rounds

To describe the implementation and efficacy of electronic capture of interventional radiology (IR) group peer review performed during morning rounds in an academic institution.

Peer-review submissions 24 months before (July 2012 through June 2014) and 24 months after (July 2014 through June 2016) implementation of an electronic group IR peer review were evaluated. Electronic IR peer review assessed clinical decision-making, patient care, and technique appropriateness by using the following responses: agree, acceptable alternative, or inappropriate. Complications, near-misses, and learning opportunities were also noted, and explanations were provided in the comments. An IR attending physician documented the consensus discussion via an online form or mobile app.

After implementation of electronic capture of IR group peer reviews, 9.5% of all IR procedures (773 of 8,152) were reviewed, compared with 0.9% (63 of 7,152) before the implementation (P < .0001). On average, 3.4 ± 0.5 IR attending physicians participated in each review, and 17.3 ± 9.7 IR cases were reviewed per month by each attending physician. Peers fully agreed with the chosen technique in 729 of 773 cases (94.3%) and noted an acceptable alternative technique in 40 of 773 (5.2%). In 4 cases (0.5%), the chosen technique was rated as inappropriate. Peers fully agreed with chosen clinical decision-making and patient care in 765 of 773 cases (99%), with 8 cases (1%) deemed as acceptable alternatives. Learning opportunities were documented in 9.6% of cases (74 of 773).

Electronic IR-specific group peer review captures the clinical decision-making process, patient outcomes, technical appropriateness, and short-term complications and may provide practice-improvement solutions.