A peer review of a peer review organization.
AUTOR(ES)
Dippe, S E
RESUMO
Under Medicare, one of the federally required objectives of peer review organizations is to reduce inappropriate and unnecessary admissions. We reevaluated 32 admissions approved and 32 denied by the Arizona peer review organization, Health Services Advisory Group (HSAG), in a "blind" manner to determine whether practicing physicians in the community agree with the local peer review organization. Overall, physicians at the Scottsdale Memorial Hospital (SMH) approved 72% of HSAG-approved and denied 61% of HSAG-denied admissions. Of the 64 admissions, 3 or 4 of 4 reviewers (2 physicians and 2 nurses) agreed with the HSAG decision in 38 (59%), but 2 or more reviewers disagreed in the other 26 (41%). Disagreement between the 2 physicians occurred in 48% of the cases and disagreement between the 2 nurses in 33%. Even among admissions denied by SMH physician reviewers, the physicians would have admitted 23% of those patients under similar circumstances. In 28% of the HSAG-denied admissions, the reviewing physicians thought that the patients' health care would have been compromised if the admissions had not taken place. Despite well-defined criteria for the appropriateness of hospital admissions, the review process remains subjective, with much disagreement between peer review organizations and practicing physicians.
