Research Methods: How to Perform an Effective Peer Review.

Scientific peer review has existed for centuries and is a cornerstone of the scientific publication process. Because the number of scientific publications has rapidly increased over the past decades, so has the number of peer reviews and peer reviewers. In this paper, drawing on the relevant medical literature and our collective experience as peer reviewers, we provide a user guide to the peer review process, including discussion of the purpose and limitations of peer review, the qualities of a good peer reviewer, and a step-by-step process of how to conduct an effective peer review.

Lessons in clinical reasoning - pitfalls, myths, and pearls: the contribution of faulty data gathering and synthesis to diagnostic error.

OBJECTIVES: Errors in clinical reasoning are a major factor for delayed or flawed diagnoses and put patient safety at risk. The diagnostic process is highly dependent on dynamic team factors, local hospital organization structure and culture, and cognitive factors. In everyday decision-making, physicians engage that challenge partly by relying on heuristics - subconscious mental short-cuts that are based on intuition and experience. Without structural corrective mechanisms, clinical judgement under time pressure creates space for harms resulting from systems and cognitive errors. Based on a case-example, we outline different pitfalls and provide strategies aimed at reducing diagnostic errors in health care. CASE PRESENTATION: A 67-year-old male patient was referred to the neurology department by his primary-care physician with the diagnosis of exacerbation of known myasthenia gravis. He reported shortness of breath and generalized weakness, but no other symptoms. Diagnosis of respiratory distress due to a myasthenic crisis was made and immunosuppressive therapy and pyridostigmine were given and plasmapheresis was performed without clinical improvement. Two weeks into the hospital stay, the patient's dyspnea worsened. A CT scan revealed extensive segmental and subsegmental pulmonary emboli. CONCLUSIONS: Faulty data gathering and flawed data synthesis are major drivers of diagnostic errors. While there is limited evidence for individual debiasing strategies, improving team factors and structural conditions can have substantial impact on the extent of diagnostic errors. Healthcare organizations should provide the structural supports to address errors and promote a constructive culture of patient safety.

The prediction and cost of futility in the NICU.

AIM: To quantify the cost and prediction of futile care in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). METHODS: We observed 1813 infants on 100,000 NICU bed days between 1999 and 2008 at the University of Chicago. We determined costs and assessed predictions of futility for each day the infant required mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: Only 6% of NICU expenses were spent on nonsurvivors, and in this sense, they were futile. If only money spent after predictions of death is considered, futile expenses fell to 4.5%. NICU care was preferentially directed to survivors for even the smallest infants, at the highest risk to die. Over 75% of ventilated NICU infants were correctly predicted to survive on every day of ventilation by every caretaker. However, predictions of 'die before discharge' were wrong more than one time in three. Attendings and neonatology fellows tended to be optimistic, while nurses and neonatal nurse practitioners tended to be pessimistic. CONCLUSIONS: Criticisms of the expense of NICU care find little support in these data. Rather, NICU care is remarkably well targeted to patients who will survive, particularly when contrasted with care in adult ICUs. We continue to search for better prognostic tools for individual infants.