Is There a Relationship Between Facility Peer Review Findings and Quality in the Veterans Health Administration?

Background: The aim of clinical peer review (PR) is to improve facility health care quality. However, prior authors have shown that PR may be biased, have rater reliability concerns, or be used for punitive reasons. It is important to determine whether facility PR processes are related to objective facility quality of care. Methods: We collected proportion of PR findings that "most experienced and competent clinicians may have managed the case differently" or "most experienced and competent clinicians would have managed the case differently" as an objective measure of facility PR processes and outcomes. We correlated these with facility quality metrics for 2019. Results: PR findings were not associated with facility quality metrics but were strongly associated with previous year findings. Conclusions: This study describes a potentially new source of bias in PR and demonstrates that objective facility outcomes are not related to individual PR findings.

From implementation to sustainment: A large-scale adverse event disclosure support program generated through embedded research in the Veterans Health Administration.

In 2008, the Veterans Health Administration published a groundbreaking policy on disclosing large-scale adverse events to patients in order to promote transparent communication in cases where harm may not be obvious or even certain. Without embedded research, the evidence on whether or not implementation of this policy was generating more harm than good among Veteran patients was unknown. Through an embedded research-operations partnership, we conducted four research projects that led to the development of an evidence-based large-scale disclosure toolkit and disclosure support program, and its implementation across VA healthcare. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we identified specific activities corresponding to planning, engaging, executing, reflecting and evaluating phases in the process of implementation. These activities included planning with operational leaders to establish a shared research agenda; engaging with stakeholders to discuss early results, establishing buy-in of our efforts and receiving feedback; joining existing operational teams to execute the toolkit implementation; partnering with clinical operations to evaluate the toolkit during real-time disclosures; and redesigning the toolkit to meet stakeholders' needs. Critical lessons learned for implementation success included a need for stakeholder collaboration and engagement, an organizational culture involving a strong belief in evidence, a willingness to embed researchers in clinical operation activities, allowing for testing and evaluation of innovative practices, and researchers open to constructive feedback. At the conclusion of the research, VA operations worked with the researchers to continue to support efforts to spread, scale-up and sustain toolkit use across the VA healthcare system, with the final goal to establish long-term sustainability.

Exploring new avenues to assess the sharp end of patient safety: an analysis of nationally aggregated peer review data.

BACKGROUND: Many healthcare organisations (HCOs) use peer review to evaluate clinical performance, but it is unclear whether these data provide useful insights for assessing the sharp end of patient safety. OBJECTIVE: To describe outcomes of peer review within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system and identify opportunities to leverage peer review data for measurement and improvement of safety. DESIGN: We partnered with the VA's Risk Management Program Office to perform descriptive analyses of aggregated peer review data collected from 135 VA facilities between October 2011 and September 2012. We determined the frequency of screening factors used to initiate peer review and processes contributing to substandard care. We also evaluated peer review data for diagnosis-related performance concerns, an emerging area of interest in the patient safety field. RESULTS: During the study period, 23 287 cases were peer reviewed; 15 739 (68%) were sent to local peer review committees for final outcome determination after an initial review and 2320 cases were ultimately designated as substandard care (mean 17 cases/facility). In 20% of cases, the screening source was unspecified. The most common process contributing to substandard care was 'timing and appropriateness of treatment'. Approximately 16% of committee reviewed cases had diagnosis-related performance concerns, which were estimated to occur in approximately 0.5% of total hospital admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Peer review may be a useful tool for HCOs to assess their sharp end clinical performance, particularly safety events related to diagnostic and treatment errors. To address these emerging and largely preventable events, HCOs could consider revamping their existing peer review programmes to enable self-assessment, feedback and improvement.