KDOQI US commentary on the KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the prevention, diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of hepatitis C in CKD.

KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) is an international initiative with a key mission of developing clinical practice guidelines in the area of chronic kidney disease (CKD). KDIGO recently published evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of hepatitis C virus infection in individuals with CKD. The process of adaptation of international guidelines is an important task that, although guided by general principles, needs to be individualized for each region and country. Therefore, the National Kidney Foundation-Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) convened a multidisciplinary group to comment on the application and implementation of the KDIGO guidelines for patients with CKD in the United States. This commentary summarizes the process undertaken by this group in considering the guidelines in the context of health care delivery in the United States. Guideline statements are presented, followed by a succinct discussion and annotation of the rationale for the statements. Research recommendations that are of particular interest to the United States are then summarized to highlight future areas of inquiry that would enable updating of the guidelines.

Using a peer evaluation system to assess faculty performance and competence.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Identification of reliable methods to evaluate the newly mandated American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS)/Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) competencies of the board-certified physician is in its early stages. In this study, we evaluated a comprehensive faculty peer evaluation system designed to assess the six competencies as well as faculty performance in their primary departmental roles and teaching. METHODS: Using a one-page form containing 19 items, all faculty members evaluated all other faculty within a single department. Annual individual faculty reviews included discussion of these aggregated evaluations. RESULTS: The reliabilities for the ACGME competency subscales ranged from .61 to .79. While overall scores were relatively high, there was variability across faculty. Factor analysis demonstrated that evaluation items load onto three scales. The first relates to clinical practice and teaching, the second to departmental citizenship, and the third to research. An item related to systems-based practice loaded on none of the factors. Research faculty outscored other faculty on the items reflecting research skills. Faculty who had primary administrative responsibility scored higher than other faculty on measures related to role within the department. No differences in subgroup scores for clinical skills were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Using a method in which all faculty evaluate each other can result in objective, reliable measures of faculty performance.