R. Balasubramaniam, K. Drinkwater, M. Beavon, R. Greenhalgh
{"title":"国家卫生服务(NHS)成像部门与远程放射学公司同行评议和同行反馈的差异做法差距有多大?","authors":"R. Balasubramaniam, K. Drinkwater, M. Beavon, R. Greenhalgh","doi":"10.1016/j.crad.2025.106919","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>AIM</h3><div>Assessing the performance of peer review (PR) and peer feedback (PF) within National Health Service (NHS) imaging departments (NIDs) and teleradiology companies (TRCs) within the United Kingdom.</div></div><div><h3>MATERIAL AND METHODS</h3><div>All NHS providers with a clinical radiology audit lead registered with the Royal College of Radiologists and the major TRCs that provided services within the UK were invited to participate via a questionnaire.</div></div><div><h3>RESULTS</h3><div>All 6 TRCs (6/6) and 73% (146/200) of NIDs responded. All 6 TRCs performed formal PR and apportioned time for the role. Only 14/146 (10%) NIDs undertook formal PR, of which 4/14 (29%) received no remuneration for the work. In comparison, most NIDs 120/146 (82%) performed informal PR, using methods like multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM) which occurred in 113/146 (77%). Peer feedback was practised by 104/146 (71%) NIDs and 5/6 (83%) TRCs, but only 30% to 49% of NIDs and 33% of TRCs used the content for reflective notes or incorporated it within appraisal. Electronic PF was possible in 36/146 (25%) NIDs and 3/6 (50%) TRCs. A peer moderator was present in 35% of NIDs and 50% of TRCs.</div></div><div><h3>CONCLUSION</h3><div>Formal PR was performed by all TRCs but underutilised within NIDs, where it was poorly remunerated. NHS imaging departments relied more on informal methods of PR, such as MDTM. The majority of NIDs and TRCs performed PF; however, the educational benefits of integrating PF within reflection and appraisal were often not implemented. Information technology systems to provide contemporaneous PF and a peer moderator could improve engagement but weren't present in most departments.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10695,"journal":{"name":"Clinical radiology","volume":"85 ","pages":"Article 106919"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differential practice of peer review and peer feedback between National Health Service (NHS) imaging departments and teleradiology companies; how big is the gap?\",\"authors\":\"R. Balasubramaniam, K. Drinkwater, M. Beavon, R. Greenhalgh\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.crad.2025.106919\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>AIM</h3><div>Assessing the performance of peer review (PR) and peer feedback (PF) within National Health Service (NHS) imaging departments (NIDs) and teleradiology companies (TRCs) within the United Kingdom.</div></div><div><h3>MATERIAL AND METHODS</h3><div>All NHS providers with a clinical radiology audit lead registered with the Royal College of Radiologists and the major TRCs that provided services within the UK were invited to participate via a questionnaire.</div></div><div><h3>RESULTS</h3><div>All 6 TRCs (6/6) and 73% (146/200) of NIDs responded. All 6 TRCs performed formal PR and apportioned time for the role. Only 14/146 (10%) NIDs undertook formal PR, of which 4/14 (29%) received no remuneration for the work. In comparison, most NIDs 120/146 (82%) performed informal PR, using methods like multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM) which occurred in 113/146 (77%). Peer feedback was practised by 104/146 (71%) NIDs and 5/6 (83%) TRCs, but only 30% to 49% of NIDs and 33% of TRCs used the content for reflective notes or incorporated it within appraisal. Electronic PF was possible in 36/146 (25%) NIDs and 3/6 (50%) TRCs. A peer moderator was present in 35% of NIDs and 50% of TRCs.</div></div><div><h3>CONCLUSION</h3><div>Formal PR was performed by all TRCs but underutilised within NIDs, where it was poorly remunerated. NHS imaging departments relied more on informal methods of PR, such as MDTM. The majority of NIDs and TRCs performed PF; however, the educational benefits of integrating PF within reflection and appraisal were often not implemented. Information technology systems to provide contemporaneous PF and a peer moderator could improve engagement but weren't present in most departments.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10695,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical radiology\",\"volume\":\"85 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106919\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009926025001242\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009926025001242","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Differential practice of peer review and peer feedback between National Health Service (NHS) imaging departments and teleradiology companies; how big is the gap?
AIM
Assessing the performance of peer review (PR) and peer feedback (PF) within National Health Service (NHS) imaging departments (NIDs) and teleradiology companies (TRCs) within the United Kingdom.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
All NHS providers with a clinical radiology audit lead registered with the Royal College of Radiologists and the major TRCs that provided services within the UK were invited to participate via a questionnaire.
RESULTS
All 6 TRCs (6/6) and 73% (146/200) of NIDs responded. All 6 TRCs performed formal PR and apportioned time for the role. Only 14/146 (10%) NIDs undertook formal PR, of which 4/14 (29%) received no remuneration for the work. In comparison, most NIDs 120/146 (82%) performed informal PR, using methods like multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM) which occurred in 113/146 (77%). Peer feedback was practised by 104/146 (71%) NIDs and 5/6 (83%) TRCs, but only 30% to 49% of NIDs and 33% of TRCs used the content for reflective notes or incorporated it within appraisal. Electronic PF was possible in 36/146 (25%) NIDs and 3/6 (50%) TRCs. A peer moderator was present in 35% of NIDs and 50% of TRCs.
CONCLUSION
Formal PR was performed by all TRCs but underutilised within NIDs, where it was poorly remunerated. NHS imaging departments relied more on informal methods of PR, such as MDTM. The majority of NIDs and TRCs performed PF; however, the educational benefits of integrating PF within reflection and appraisal were often not implemented. Information technology systems to provide contemporaneous PF and a peer moderator could improve engagement but weren't present in most departments.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Radiology is published by Elsevier on behalf of The Royal College of Radiologists. Clinical Radiology is an International Journal bringing you original research, editorials and review articles on all aspects of diagnostic imaging, including:
• Computed tomography
• Magnetic resonance imaging
• Ultrasonography
• Digital radiology
• Interventional radiology
• Radiography
• Nuclear medicine
Papers on radiological protection, quality assurance, audit in radiology and matters relating to radiological training and education are also included. In addition, each issue contains correspondence, book reviews and notices of forthcoming events.