Search

Hospital system sued again over alleged peer review misconduct.

Peer review features prominently in the forensic sciences. Drawing on recent research and studies, this article examines different types of peer review, specifically: editorial peer review; peer review by the scientific community; technical and administrative review; and verification (and replication). The article reviews the different meanings of these quite disparate activities and their utility in relation to enhancing performance and reducing error. It explains how forensic practitioners should approach and use peer review, as well as how it should be described in expert reports and oral testimony. While peer review has considerable potential, and is a key component of modern quality management systems, its actual value in most forensic science settings has yet to be determined. In consequence, forensic practitioners should reflect on why they use specific review procedures and endeavour to make their actual practices and their potential value transparent to consumers; whether investigators, lawyers, jurors or judges. Claims that review increases the validity of a scientific technique or accuracy of opinions within a particular case should be avoided until empirical evidence is available to support such assertions., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

In the academic world, peer review is one of the major processes in evaluating a scholars contribution. In this study, we are interested in quantifying the merits of different policies in a peer review process, such as single-blind review, double-blind review, and obtaining authors feedback. Currently, insufficient work has been undertaken to evaluate the benefits of different peer review policies. One of the major reasons for this situation is the inability to conduct any empirical study because data are presently unavailable. In this case, a computer simulation is one of the best ways to conduct a study. We perform a series of simulations to study the effects of different policies on a peer review process. In this study, we focus on the peer review process of a typical computer science conference. Our results point to the crucial role of program chairs in determining the quality and diversity of the articles to be accepted for publication. We demonstrate the importance of discussion among reviewers, suggest circumstances in which the double-blind review policy should be adopted, and question the credibility of the authors feedback mechanism. Finally, we stress that randomness plays an important role in the peer review process, and this role cannot be eliminated. Although our model may not capture every component of a peer review process, it covers some of the most essential elements. Thus, even the simulation results clearly cannot be taken as literal descriptions of an actual peer review process. However, we can at least still use them to identify alternative directions for future study.

This article discusses recent developments in three areas, all of which relate to discovery in medical malpractice cases. The first topic is claims of spoliation in the context of medical malpractice. The second topic is the evolving peer review privilege and its limitation or expansion by state courts. Finally, we discuss two important cases in which state courts have interpreted HIPAA’s privacy rules and applied them in the context of ex parte communications with treating physicians and pre-suit discovery of a plaintiff's medical information.

The authors raise the question whether a surgeon in 2010 may still decide by himself to operate a digestive cancer. Progresses in oncology and surgery have been considerable over the past 50 years. The appearance of laws over the past decade and the emergence of the concept of Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) have refocused the role of the surgeon in the care of digestive cancers. The emergence of quality systems such as peer review, 150 certification to analyze surgical procedures and results place the surgeons in the very front. The evolution of the surgical and oncological disciplines will change the role of the surgeon again in the future. The surgeon may always decide to operate a cancer in a coordinate way with the other care givers.

Peer review committees in Wisconsin should keep in mind both the Wisconsin peer review immunity statute and HCQIA when structuring their peer review processes. Documenting that actions were taken in good faith is critical. While this is not a consideration under HCQIA, it is under Wisconsin law. Temporary restrictions on a physician's privileges can be appropriate when patient safety requires it; in these circumstances, hospitals should make sure to keep the issue raised by HCQIA's emergency exception. By and large, courts have sided with hospitals in peer review disputes. The physician challenging the peer review action bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that no reasonable belief supported the action. While the initial rulings in the Poliner case raised concerns, these rulings were not typical and were ultimately reversed. The recent ruling by the Appeals Court affirms that HCQIA stands on solid ground, provides reassurance to hospitals and physicians engaged in peer review, and advances the goals of Congress by allowing peer review committees to take actions that are in the best interest of patients. At the same time, physicians subject to review retain the right to seek remedies other than money damages and to hold a hospital and its medical staff to a reasonable standard conduct that they can reasonably implement.