ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Physician peer review is a universal practice in U.S. hospitals. While there are many commonalities in peer review procedures, many of them established by law, there is also much institutional variation, which should be well understood by practicing neurosurgeons. METHODS: A 13-question pilot survey was conducted of a sample of 5 hospital systems with whom members of the Council of State Neurosurgical Societies Medico-Legal Committee are affiliated. Survey questions were constructed to qualitatively assess 3 features of hospital peer review: 1) committee composition and process, 2) committee outcomes, and 3) legal protections and ramifications. RESULTS: The most common paradigm for a physician peer review committee was an interdisciplinary group with representatives from most major medical and surgical subspecialties. Referrals for peer review inquiry could be made by any hospital employee and were largely anonymous. Most institutions included a precommittee screening process conducted by the physician peer review committee leadership. The most common outcomes of an inquiry were resolution with no further action or ongoing focused professional practice evaluation. Hospital privileges were only rarely reported to be revoked or terminated. Members of the physician peer review committee were consistently protected from retaliatory litigation related to peer review participation. Most hospitals had a multilayered decision process and availability of appeal to minimize potential for punitive investigations. CONCLUSIONS: According to a recent study, only 62% of hospitals consider their peer review process to be highly or significantly standardized. This pilot survey provides commentary of potential areas of commonality and variation among hospital peer review practices.