Background: The topic of peer review in radiology has sparked conversation around its benefits and has become a required metric for radiology quality assurance (QA). Unsurprisingly, the drawbacks of peer review have stirred up the most buzz, moving many radiologists to propose a transition from traditional peer review to a predominantly peer learning paradigm. Traditionally, formal peer review lends to a bevy of limitations including, fostering a punitive environment and reviewer bias. To combat this, many have proposed that a peer learning process would foster a nonjudgmental and effective culture while promoting focused learning opportunities and creation of practice standards. Breast imaging is no stranger to quality assurance measures. With the passage of the Mammography Quality Standards ACT, quality standards of mammography interpreting physicians have been set and monitored for over three decades. With the recent release of the American College of Radiology’s new requirements for peer learning QA pathway, examining the peer learning paradigm shift among breast imagers will gauge how breast imagers feel about this transition and emphasize how peer learning is pivotal to quality improvement in breast imaging.
Learning Objectives: 1. Define traditional formal peer review in radiology. 2. Define limitations of formal peer review in radiology. 3. Define Peer Learning, Peer Feedback and Peer Coaching. 4. Define limitations of Peer Learning. 5. Delineate how peer learning is implemented in breast imaging.
Abstract Content/Results: 1. Review formal peer review in radiology, QA in breast imaging, MQSA, and RADPEER. 2. Review Peer Learning advantages, limitations, Peer Feedback, and Peer coaching. 3. Review Peer collaborative improvement and Case based oriented group review methods. 4. Review implementation of peer learning in breast imaging. 5. Present current survey data about how breast imagers feel about switching from peer review to peer learning. 6. Present case series of a quarterly case-based group review session, with 5 example cases.
Conclusion: Outcome assessment of breast imaging interpretations is necessary for improving quality assurance. Compared to traditional peer review, peer learning fosters a culture that encourages a nonpunitive process, promoting focused learning and reducing diagnostic errors. Transitioning to a qualifying assessment model facilitates identification and discussion of learning and quality improvement opportunities. Additionally, an anonymous review process decreases the risk of reviewer bias and increases participation of radiologists. In conclusion, the paradigm shift to peer learning combats limitations of traditional formal peer review by prioritizing group discussion of cases to improve outcomes, optimizing group standards of practice and fostering peer feedback.
