ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Although many health care institutions believe that clinical peer review is vital for identifying and improving quality of care, peer review is perceived by many clinicians as variable and inherently punitive. Successful peer review requires institutional leadership and adoption of a just culture approach to investigating and determining accountability for medical errors that result in harm. METHODS: We describe how an academic medical center implemented and adapted its clinical peer review processes to be consistent with just culture theory and provide a roadmap that other institutions may follow. Specific examples of peer review are highlighted to show how the process improved patient safety in the departments of emergency medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics. RESULTS: The most significant process improvement was shifting from a tradition of assigning letter grades of "A," "B," or "C" to determine whether preventable adverse events were caused by "human error," "at-risk behavior," or "reckless behavior." This categorization of human behaviors enabled patient safety officers within 3 departments to develop specific interventions to protect patients and enlist physician support for improving clinical systems. CONCLUSIONS: Each department's success was due to recognition of different patient and provider cultures that offer unique challenges. The transformation of peer review was a crucial first step to shift perceptions of peer review from a punitive to a constructive process intended to improve patient safety. Our experience with reengineering clinical peer review shows the importance of focusing on just culture as a key method to prevent patient harm.
