One of the current limitations of Peer Review in most organizations is that the documentation process is cumbersome and confusing. Acesis’s Peer Review customers wanted an easier way for expert reviewers to complete their required tasks and follow their organization’s standards. In Acesis Peer Review, questions are presented to reviewers only if prior questions indicate they are clinically relevant, and instructions can guide the reviewer as needed. After signoff, Peer Review is tracked to ensure all appropriate steps are followed.
Acesis forms adapt to your current process instead of forcing your physicians to adopt a new process.
- Apply your organization’s Safety Event Classification definitions and algorithms in order to determine the level of harm and event type. Customize your own classification system taxonomy for safety events, or build from your preferred industry sources.
- Incorporate your organization’s definitions of how you classify human errors, possibly as: skill-based, rule-based or knowledge-based. Define specific descriptions of failure types, either individual or systemic.
Performing Medical Review with Acesis provides the key benefits of credibility, objectivity, efficiency, and fairness.
Without credibility, medical review results are not actionable. Physicians may be quick to think “but my patients are different”, and they may be right. To achieve credibility, the original data must be captured in enough detail to be statistically relevant. The data can’t be ‘generic’, but needs to reflect local needs and concerns. If available, the expertise of remote reviewers reduces conflicts of interest. The documentation process and analytics should be transparent to all the parties involved. The analysis results need to be traceable to detailed source data, and for trending, the immediacy of credible real-time analysis reduces the feedback loop needed to catch and improve negative trends. Flexibility in reporting helps to translate data into actionable knowledge.
Objectivity is achieved through standards and overcoming local prejudices. Standardization of scoring reduces arbitrariness and the perception of arbitrariness. Comparisons to national and/or organizational norms when appropriate provide baselines for quality measures.
Efficiencies need to be found throughout the peer review process in order to perform adequate review cost-effectively. First, initial data entry needs to be performed quickly by quality staff, and with Acesis’s dynamically adapting templates, the right questions are asked at the right time. Because the internal staff can gather the right clinical data quickly, this reduces the time and expenditure for expensive peer review experts. Our Internet-based product increases the ability of medical peers to have confidential access to records and consequently sufficient time to conduct thoughtful review and analysis of the care provided. Expert reviewers, when used, no longer need to travel, and therefore travel costs are eliminated.
Fairness is improved though consideration of local needs, pre-agreement of review criteria, and distributed collaborative teams. Review criteria must consider local needs, and software must quickly adapt to address concerns arising during ongoing review. Unlike traditional Professional Services mechanisms, Acesis templates are easily modified by medical staff, and therefore are likely to reflect local concerns. Through simple document workflow, a formalized review process can be maintained across providers, reducing arbitrariness. And because Acesis software is accessible through a secure Internet application, physical distance of expert peer reviewers is no longer a hindrance to accomplish ‘similar specialty’ peer reviews.
Acesis has implemented many Peer Review applications, and we have discovered that although there are some commonalities in peer review, different organizations have different philosophies and workflows for the process. Acesis has a base application which we expect organizations to rapidly customize to meet their needs.