[Reliability of peer review-like dialogue in the German statutory quality assurance program]. / Reliabilität des Strukturierten Dialogs in der gesetzlich verpflichtenden Qualitätssicherung.

BACKGROUND: Quality measurement in the German statutory program for quality in health care follows a two-step process. For selected areas of health care, quality is measured via performance indicators (first step). Providers failing to achieve benchmarks in these indicators subsequently enter into a peer review process (second step) and are asked by the respective regional authority to provide a written statement regarding their indicator results. The statements are then evaluated by peers, with the goal to assess the provider's quality of care. In the past, similar peer review-based approaches to the measurement of health care quality in other countries have shown a tendency to lack reliability. So far, the reliability of this component of the German statutory program for quality in health care has not been investigated. METHOD: Using logistic regression models, the influence of the respective regional authority on the peer review component of health care quality measurement in Germany was investigated using three exemplary indicators and data from 2016. RESULTS: Both the probability that providers are asked to provide a statement as well as the results produced by the peer review process significantly depend on the regional authority in charge. This dependence cannot be fully explained by differences in the indicator results or by differences in case volume. CONCLUSIONS: The present results are in accordance with earlier findings, which show low reliability for peer review-based approaches to quality measurement. Thus, different results produced by the peer review component of the quality measurement process may in part be due to differences in the way the review process is conducted. This heterogeneity among the regional authorities limits the reliability of this process. In order to increase reliability, the peer review process should be standardized to a higher degree, with clear review criteria, and the peers should undergo comprehensive training for the review process. Alternatively, the future peer review component could be adapted to focus rather on identification of improvement strategies than on reliable provider comparisons.

Radiation Oncology Peer Review in a Community Setting: The Value of Prospective Review.

Peer review is an important component of any radiation oncology continuous quality improvement program. While limited guidelines exist, there is no consensus about how peer review should be performed, and large variations exist among different institutions. The purpose of this report is to describe our experience with peer review at a busy Radiation Oncology clinic and to evaluate the difference between prospective and retrospective peer review. We also performed a failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) of the peer review process. Starting in 2015, every peer review session was tracked, including recommended changes to treatment plans. We reviewed the frequency, types and severity of these changes. A team of physicians and physicists conducted an FMEA of the peer review process. Between April 2015 and June 2020, a total of 3,691 patients were peer-reviewed. Out of those, 1,903 were prospective reviews (51.6%). Plans reviewed before treatment were almost 4.5 times more likely to be changed by peer review than those reviewed after the start of treatment (0.9% vs 0.2%). Plan changes after the start of treatment had a higher severity than changes prior to the start of treatment. FMEA identified several critical components of peer review. While there is no national standard for peer review, it is evident that prospective peer review is preferable. There may be a subconscious reluctance to change plans already underway, which could be a barrier to improving plans with the peer review process. Rather than reviewing in a group setting, it would be ideal to individually assign review tasks that are embedded in the clinical flow, assuring prospective review for all patients prior to final physician approval. Individual review rather than group review may be more candid, due to interpersonal concerns about publicly disagreeing with colleagues.

Peer evaluation and feedback for invasive medical procedures: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is significant variability in the performance and outcomes of invasive medical procedures such as percutaneous coronary intervention, endoscopy, and bronchoscopy. Peer evaluation is a common mechanism for assessment of clinician performance and care quality, and may be ideally suited for the evaluation of medical procedures. We therefore sought to perform a systematic review to identify and characterize peer evaluation tools for practicing clinicians, assess evidence supporting the validity of peer evaluation, and describe best practices of peer evaluation programs across multiple invasive medical procedures. METHODS: A systematic search of Medline and Embase (through September 7, 2021) was conducted to identify studies of peer evaluation and feedback relating to procedures in the field of internal medicine and related subspecialties. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed. Data were extracted on peer evaluation methods, feedback structures, and the validity and reproducibility of peer evaluations, including inter-observer agreement and associations with other quality measures when available. RESULTS: Of 2,135 retrieved references, 32 studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, 21 were from the field of gastroenterology, 5 from cardiology, 3 from pulmonology, and 3 from interventional radiology. Overall, 22 studies described the development or testing of peer scoring systems and 18 reported inter-observer agreement, which was good or excellent in all but 2 studies. Only 4 studies, all from gastroenterology, tested the association of scoring systems with other quality measures, and no studies tested the impact of peer evaluation on patient outcomes. Best practices included standardized scoring systems, prospective criteria for case selection, and collaborative and non-judgmental review. CONCLUSIONS: Peer evaluation of invasive medical procedures is feasible and generally demonstrates good or excellent inter-observer agreement when performed with structured tools. Our review identifies common elements of successful interventions across specialties. However, there is limited evidence that peer-evaluated performance is linked to other quality measures or that feedback to clinicians improves patient care or outcomes. Additional research is needed to develop and test peer evaluation and feedback interventions.

The quantitative impact of joint peer review with a specialist radiologist in head and neck cancer radiotherapy planning.

OBJECTIVES: Radiologist input in peer review of head and neck radiotherapy has been introduced as a routine departmental approach. The aim was to evaluate this practice and to quantitatively analyse the changes made. METHODS: Patients treated with radical-dose radiotherapy between August and November 2020 were reviewed. The incidence of major and minor changes, as defined by The Royal College of Radiologists guidance, was prospectively recorded. The amended radiotherapy volumes were compared with the original volumes using Jaccard Index (JI) to assess conformity; Geographical Miss Index (GMI) for undercontouring; and Hausdorff Distance (HD) between the volumes. RESULTS: In total, 73 out of 87 (84%) patients were discussed. Changes were recommended in 38 (52%) patients: 30 had ≥1 major change, eight had minor changes only. There were 99 amended volumes: The overall median JI, GMI and HD was 0.91 (interquartile range [IQR]=0.80-0.97), 0.06 (IQR = 0.02-0.18) and 0.42 cm (IQR = 0.20-1.17 cm), respectively. The nodal gross-tumour-volume (GTVn) and therapeutic high-dose nodal clinical-target-volume (CTVn) had the biggest magnitude of changes: The median JI, GMI and HD of GTVn was 0.89 (IQR = 0.44-0.95), 0.11 (IQR = 0.05-0.51), 3.71 cm (IQR = 0.31-6.93 cm); high-dose CTVn was 0.78 (IQR = 0.59-0.90), 0.20 (IQR = 0.07-0.31) and 3.28 cm (IQR = 1.22-6.18 cm), respectively. There was no observed difference in the quantitative indices of the 85 'major' and 14 'minor' volumes (p = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Routine head and neck radiologist input in radiotherapy peer review is feasible and can help avoid gross error in contouring. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The major and minor classifications may benefit from differentiation with quantitative indices but requires correlation from clinical outcomes.

Escola de pais do Brasil: prevenção e promoção de práticas parentais positivas / Parents school of Brazil: prevention and promotion of positive parenting practices / Escuela de padres en Brasil: prevención y promoción de prácticas de crianza positivas

RESUMO A Escola de Pais do Brasil (EPB) realiza o Círculo de Debates, trabalho preventivo realizado com pais e cuidadores, em parceria com prefeituras e escolas das regiões dos municípios em que possuem seccionais. Esta pesquisa teve como objetivo descrever e analisar o Círculo de Debates através de um estudo observacional, com observação participante e registro em diário de campo, que resultou em análise temática e criação de três categorias mutuamente excludentes: prevenção, cotidiano dos pais/mães e valores e limites na educação. Apresenta ainda uma categoria transversal: a psicoeducação. Pela análise, o trabalho do Círculo de Debates da EPB foi considerado psicoeducativo, de prevenção e promoção de práticas parentais positivas.

ABSTRACT The Parent's School of Brazil (EPB) conducts the Debate Circle, preventive work with parents, mothers, and caregivers, in partnership with city halls and schools in the regions of the counties in which they have sections. This study sought to describe and analyze the Debate Circles through an observational study, with participant observation and the use of a field diary. Analyses were conducted via thematic analysis and three mutually exclusive categories were generated: prevention, parents' daily life and values, and limits in education. It also presents a transversal category: psychoeducation. According to the analysis, the work of the EPB Debate Circle was considered psychoeducative for the prevention and promotion of positive parenting practices.

RESUMEN La Escuela de Padres de Brasil (EPB) realiza el Círculo de Debate, trabajo preventivo con padres, madres y cuidadores, en alianza con ayuntamientos y escuelas de las regiones de los municipios en los que tiene secciones. Este estudio buscó describir y analizar los Círculos de Debate a través de un estudio observacional, con observación participante y el uso de diario de campo, que da como resultado el análisis temático y la creación de tres categorías mutuamente excluyentes: prevención, vida cotidiana de los padres y valores y límites en la educación. También presenta una categoría transversal: psicoeducación. Según el análisis, el trabajo del Círculo de Debate EPB se consideró psicoeducativo, para la prevención y promoción de prácticas parentales positivas.

Surgeons' Responses to a Surgical Mortality Audit: Accepting and Improving: A Cross Sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Surgeons strive to provide the best care possible to their patients. The Australian and New Zealand Audit of Surgical Mortality is a process for improving surgical care and outcomes via peer-review assessment of mortality cases. This article examines the acceptability of the assessments to Queensland surgeons, in addition to examining their impact on surgical care. METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional survey. Evaluation forms were sent to all Queensland surgeons who had received a first-line assessment with clinical incidents identified or a second-line assessment (with or without clinical incidents), between April 2018 and January 2020 (n = 484). A total of 102 evaluation forms were returned, giving a response rate of 21%. RESULTS: Most respondents agreed that their assessments were fair (78%) and informative (69%). Almost half (43%) agreed that their assessment improved the subsequent surgical care they provided. Comments supported this, with surgeons describing reflections, meetings and changes that had occurred following their assessments. Despite the strong proportion of positive comments, some surgeons disagreed with the opinions or recommendations of their assessors. A large percentage (41%) was neutral towards the ability of the assessments they had received to improve surgical care at the hospital level. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high degree of acceptance of the QASM peer-review assessment process. The assessments facilitated discussion, reflection and implementation of surgical care improvements in Queensland surgeons. Further research into this topic should involve refinement of the study tool with a larger, and therefore more representative, proportion of the surgical population.

Evidence Review for the American College of Surgeons Quality Verification Part I: Building Quality and Safety Resources and Infrastructure.

Decades of quality program development by the American College of Surgeons (ACS) have identified the key components of a successful program for optimal surgical care and quality improvement. These key principles have been developed into a verification program-the ACS Quality Verification Program-to guide hospitals to improve surgical quality, safety, and reliability across all surgical specialties. The aim of this review was to synthesize the evidence supporting the first 4 of 12 ACS Quality Verification Program core principles of building quality and safety resources and infrastructure. MEDLINE was searched for articles published from inception to January 2019 for studies describing principles of leadership commitment to surgical quality and safety, a surgical quality officer, a surgical quality committee, and a culture of safety and high reliability. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion in a hierarchical fashion, extracted data, and summarized results in a narrative fashion. A total of 5,332 studies across the 4 principles were identified. After exclusion criteria, a total of 477 studies in systematic reviews and primary studies were included for assessment. Despite heterogeneous study design and lack of randomized controlled trials, the available literature supports the importance of committed top-level hospital leadership, mid-level leadership, and committee dedicated to surgical quality and culture of safety and high reliability. In conclusion, adequate resources and infrastructure integral to the ACS Quality Verification Program are critical to achieving safe and high-quality surgical outcomes.

Quality improvement in paediatric radiation oncology through peer review.

INTRODUCTION: Around 300 children in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) undergo a course of radiation treatment (RT) each year. A fortnightly videoconference for radiation oncologists managing children started in 2013. We conducted an audit of the videoconference to assess its influence on the care of children who receive RT in ANZ. METHODS: De-identified data from minutes (August 2013-December 2019) were analysed retrospectively using three categories: meeting participation, case presentations and management decisions. RESULTS: There were 119 meetings and 334 children discussed over the six-year audit period with regular attendance from four of 11 centres treating children in ANZ. Most cases (80%) were discussed prior to RT. A change in the overall management plan was recommended for around one in eight patients (35/334, 13%). RT plan reviews were performed in 79 cases (23%). Adjustments were made to the target volume contours or treatment plan in 8% (6/79). CONCLUSION: Increasing the frequency of the meeting to weekly and compliant with the RANZCR Peer Review Audit Tool has the capacity to review all paediatric RT patients in ANZ prior to RT and initiate changes for as many as one in eight children treated by RT each year. The meeting should be considered a core component necessary to maintain expertise in paediatric RT in all centres providing RT for children in ANZ while also acting as a proton referral panel as more children are referred abroad for proton therapy before the Australian Bragg Centre for Proton Therapy opens in Adelaide in 2024.

100% peer review in radiation oncology: is it feasible?

PURPOSE: Peer review has been proposed as a strategy to ensure patient safety and plan quality in radiation oncology. Despite its potential benefits, barriers commonly exist to its optimal implementation in daily clinical routine. Our purpose is to analyze peer-review process at our institution. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Based on our group peer-review process, we quantified the rate of plan changes, time and resources needed for this process. Prospectively, data on cases presented at our institutional peer-review conference attended by physicians, resident physicians and physicists were collected. Items such as time to present per case, type of patient (adult or pediatric), treatment intent, dose, aimed technique, disease location and receipt of previous radiation were gathered. Cases were then analyzed to determine the rate of major change, minor change and plan rejection after presentation as well as the median time per session. RESULTS: Over a period of 4 weeks, 148 cases were reviewed. Median of attendants was six physicians, three in-training-physicians and one physicist. Median time per session was 38 (4-72) minutes. 59.5% of cases presented in 1-4 min, 32.4% in 5-9 min and 8.1% in ≥ 10 min. 79.1% of cases were accepted without changes, 11.5% with minor changes, 6% with major changes and 3.4% were rejected with indication of new presentation. Most frequent reason of change was contouring corrections (53.8%) followed by dose or fractionation (26.9%). CONCLUSION: Everyday group consensus peer review is an efficient manner to recollect clinical and technical data of cases presented to ensure quality radiation care before initiation of treatment as well as ensuring department quality in a feedback team environment. This model is feasible within the normal operation of every radiation oncology Department.

Quality of teaching radiation oncology in Germany-where do we stand? : Results from a 2019 survey performed by the working group "young DEGRO" of the German Society of Radiation Oncology.

PURPOSE: Medical students' knowledge of radiation oncology (RO) is of increasing importance with a rising prevalence of malignancies. However, RO teaching in medical schools is heterogeneous and has not been analyzed at a federal level yet. Therefore, the following survey aims to provide a national overview of RO teaching in Germany. METHODS: A questionnaire containing multiple-choice and free-text questions covering the extent and topics of RO teaching was sent to RO departments of all university hospitals in Germany and was answered by the heads of department/main lecturers. RESULTS: 24/35 (68.6%) RO departments returned completed forms. Most faculties employ lectures (91.7%), seminars (87.5%), and practical/bedside training (75.0%), whereas training in radiation biology and medical physics are rare (25% and 33.3%, respectively). Main topics covered are general RO (100%), radiation biology (91.7%), and side effects (87.5%). Regarding RO techniques and concepts, image-guided and intensity-modulated radiotherapy are taught at all faculties, followed by palliative and stereotactic techniques (87.5% each). Notably, all departments offered at least a partial rotation in RO in conjunction with radiology and/or nuclear medicine departments in the last year of medical school, while only 70.8% provided a complete rotation in RO. In addition, 57.1% of the departments have taken measures concerning the upcoming National Competence-Based Learning Objectives Catalogue (NKLM) for medical education. CONCLUSION: RO plays an integral but underrepresented role in clinical medical education in Germany, but faces new challenges in the development of practical and competence-based education, which will require further innovative and interdisciplinary concepts.

Quality and access - Early experience of implementing a virtual stereotactic chart round across a national network.

INTRODUCTION: Stereotactic radiation therapy is a highly specialised technique which requires careful and structured implementation. As part of a national stereotactic programme implementation, protocols were developed and a national stereotactic chart round was formed, which strongly recommended attendance and presentation of all cases before treatment. Herein, we describe our experiences launching a national chart round and its importance in a stereotactic programme. METHOD: Stereotactic chart rounds were held via videoconference between July 2018 and July 2019. Data collected included attendances, patient-related information including, diagnosis, clinical background, treatment intent, prescribed dose and fractionation and technical approach. Consensus recommendations regarding changes to treatment approaches were also recorded. RESULTS: For the 12 months recorded, there were 1126 attendances, from 144 individual attendees, across 21 locations. In total, 285 cases (237 new cases, and 48 re-presentations) were presented by 27 radiation oncologists (ROs) from 13 different locations. From the cases presented, 65 changes were recommended from 53 patients (22.3%), including 27 (11.4%) changes to contours, 18 (7.6%) changes to dose prescription/fractionation, 9 (3.8%) changes to plan dosimetry, 1 (0.4%) changes to treatment technique and 10 (4.2%) recommendations for which stereotactic radiation therapy was not advised. A significant inverse relationship was found between frequency of recommended changes and the individual RO's stereotactic case load (P < 0.002). CONCLUSION: The implementation of a national stereotactic chart held via videoconference has ensured national protocol compliance across the network of locations. Furthermore, the chart rounds have allowed the entire multidisciplinary team to be provided with mentorship and guidance. Increasing number of cases presented was associated with lower rates of recommended changes highlighting the impact of experience and the need for continued mentorship.

Los peritos médicos, psiquiatras y psicólogos, y el nuevo Código Procesal Penal Federal. Su participación en el sistema penal acusatorio / Medical experts, psychiatrists and psychologists, and the new Federal Criminal Procedure Code. Their participation in criminal trials in adversarial system

En junio de 2019 comenzó a aplicarse el nuevo Código Procesal Penal Federal, que adopta como sistema de enjuiciamiento el modelo acusatorio. Este modelo implementa la oralidad, la inmediatez, la contradicción y la publicidad como guías de los procesos judiciales. En este sistema el rol de los peritos juega un papel fundamental para el que deben estar preparados. (AU)

In June 2019, the new Federal Criminal Procedure Code began to be used, which adopts the adversarial model as a system of prosecution. This model implements orality, immediacy, contradiction and publicity as guides to judicial processes. In this system the role of the experts plays a fundamental role for which they must be prepared. (AU)

Impact of Peer Review in the Radiation Treatment Planning Process: Experience of a Tertiary Care University Hospital in Pakistan.

PURPOSE: To evaluate and report the frequency of changes in radiation therapy treatment plans after peer review in a simulation review meeting once a week. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between July 1 and August 31, 2016, the radiation plans of 116 patients were discussed in departmental simulation review meetings. All plans were finalized by the primary radiation oncologist before presenting them in the meeting. A team of radiation oncologists reviewed each plan, and their suggestions were documented as no change, major change, minor change, or missing contour. Changes were further classified as changes in clinical target volume, treatment field, or dose. All recommendations were stratified on the basis of treatment intent, site, and technique. Data were analyzed by Statistical Package for the Social Sciences and are presented descriptively. RESULTS: Out of 116 plans, 26 (22.4%) were recommended for changes. Minor changes were suggested in 15 treatment plans (12.9%) and a major change in 10 (8.6%), and only one plan was suggested for missing contour. The frequency of change recommendations was greater in radical radiation plans than in palliative plans (92.3% v 7.7%). The head and neck was the most common treatment site recommended for any changes (42.3%). Most of the changes were recommended in the technique planned with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (50%). Clinical target volume (73.1%) was identified as the most frequent parameter suggested for any change, followed by treatment field (19.2%) and dose (0.08%). CONCLUSION: Peer review is an important tool that can be used to overcome deficiencies in radiation treatment plans, with a goal of improved and individualized patient care. Our study reports changes in up to a quarter of radiotherapy plans.

Quality Assurance Peer Review for Radiotherapy for Haematological Malignancies.

AIMS: To assess the impact of weekly scheduled peer review of radiotherapy planning contours for definitive treatment of haematological malignancies based on rates of recommended changes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analysis of a prospective database of contour-based peer review at weekly scheduled meetings for patients undergoing definitive radiotherapy for haematological malignancies at a single large cancer centre between January and December 2018. Recommended changes were prospectively classified as involving the gross tumour volume (GTV), clinical target volume (CTV), planning target volume (PTV), organs at risk or dose fractionation. A univariate analysis was carried out to explore the associations between recommended changes and disease, treatment characteristics and consultant experience. RESULTS: In total, 158/171 (92%) of all cases of haematological malignancy undergoing definitive radiotherapy were prospectively peer reviewed over a 12-month period. Overall, 26/158 (16.5%) changes were recommended within the peer review meetings. This included a total of 27 contour changes (GTV, CTV or PTV) in 25 patients. An increase in CTV was the most common change, occurring in 20/158 (12.7%) cases. One dose-fractionation change was recommended. Additional advice regarding planning technique/set-up was documented in 5/158 (3.2%) patients. There were no significant associations between rates of recommended change and disease type, stage, prior chemotherapy, first line versus refractory/relapse, anatomical site, radiotherapy technique or consultant experience. CONCLUSIONS: Weekly contour-based peer review meetings resulted in a high rate of recommended changes. Compliance was high. Peer review was potentially beneficial for all disease and treatment characteristics and for any degree of clinician experience.

Low-value clinical practices in injury care: A scoping review and expert consultation survey.

BACKGROUND: Tests and treatments that are not supported by evidence and could expose patients to unnecessary harm, referred to here as low-value clinical practices, consume up to 30% of health care resources. Choosing Wisely and other organizations have published lists of clinical practices to be avoided. However, few apply to injury and most are based uniquely on expert consensus. We aimed to identify low-value clinical practices in acute injury care. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review targeting articles, reviews and guidelines that identified low-value clinical practices specific to injury populations. Thirty-six experts rated clinical practices on a five-point Likert scale from clearly low value to clearly beneficial. Clinical practices reported as low value by at least one level I, II, or III study and considered clearly or potentially low-value by at least 75% of experts were retained as candidates for low-value injury care. RESULTS: Of 50,695 citations, 815 studies were included and led to the identification of 150 clinical practices. Of these, 63 were considered candidates for low-value injury care; 33 in the emergency room, 9 in trauma surgery, 15 in the intensive care unit, and 5 in orthopedics. We also identified 87 "gray zone" practices, which did not meet our criteria for low-value care. CONCLUSION: We identified 63 low-value clinical practices in acute injury care that are supported by empirical evidence and expert opinion. Conditional on future research, they represent potential targets for guidelines, overuse metrics and de-implementation interventions. We also identified 87 "gray zone" practices, which may be interesting targets for value-based decision-making. Our study represents an important step toward the deimplementation of low-value clinical practices in injury care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review, Level IV.

The Congenital Heart Technical Skill Study: Rationale and Design.

BACKGROUND: We report the rationale and design for a peer-evaluation protocol of attending congenital heart surgeon technical skill using direct video observation. METHODS: All surgeons contributing data to The Society of Thoracic Surgeons-Congenital Heart Surgery Database (STS-CHSD) are invited to submit videos of themselves operating, to rate peers, or both. Surgeons may submit Norwood procedures, complete atrioventricular canal repairs, and/or arterial switch operations. A HIPPA-compliant website allows secure transmission/evaluation. Videos are anonymously rated using a modified Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills score. Ratings are linked to five years of contemporaneous outcome data from the STS-CHSD and surgeon questionnaires. The primary outcome is a composite for major morbidity/mortality. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-six surgeons from 113 centers are eligible for participation: 83 (30%) surgeons from 53 (45%) centers have agreed to participate, with recruitment ongoing. These surgeons vary considerably in years of experience and outcomes. Participants, both early and late in their careers, describe the process as "very rewarding" and "less time consuming than anticipated." An initial subset of 10 videos demonstrated excellent interrater reliability (interclass correlation = 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: This study proposes to evaluate the technical skills of attending pediatric cardiothoracic surgeons by video observation and peer-review. It is notable that over a quarter of congenital heart surgeons, across a range of experiences, from almost half of United States centers have already agreed to participate. This study also creates a mechanism for peer feedback; we hypothesize that feedback could yield broad and meaningful quality improvement.

A Prospective Analysis of Radiation Oncologist Compliance With Early Peer Review Recommendations.

PURPOSE: We conducted a prospective observational cohort study of physician compliance with daily early pretreatment planning peer review recommendations and quantified factors associated with compliance. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All patient cases in our department are presented at 2 peer review conferences: (1) "early" preplanning, occurring daily for patients who have undergone simulation review, and (2) "late" (chart rounds), occurring weekly for patients who have started treatment. Peer review recommendations were prospectively recorded during early review, and compliance with recommendations was determined at chart rounds. Recommendations were assigned magnitude scores (minor, moderate, or major). We analyzed the association of patient, physician, and recommendation characteristics and compliance (scored as a binary variable) with early peer review recommendations, using logistic regression with a mixed effects model. RESULTS: From February 2017 to May 2018, 1271 patient cases underwent early peer review, and 326 (26%) received peer-based recommendations. Of 356 recommendations, 37% were minor, 36% were moderate, and 27% were major. Overall compliance was 59% (95% confidence interval, 54%-64%). On univariate analysis, compliance decreased as the recommendation magnitude increased (minor, 65%; moderate, 60%; major, 47%; P = .019; odds ratio, 0.71 per increase in magnitude). Compliance also differed among different treating physicians (range, 38%-73%, χ2 test, P = .003) but was not associated with other physician characteristics. Disease group and treatment technique were not associated with compliance. On multivariable analysis, increasing recommendation magnitude remained significantly associated with decreased compliance (multivariate P = .042; odds ratio, 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Daily early peer review resulted in a substantial proportion of recommended changes. Compliance with early peer review recommendations was fair but varied among physicians. Compliance declined with increasing recommendation magnitude, suggesting that physicians may be reluctant to adopt major changes. These results highlight the potential importance of peer review timing.