Nursing peer review: the manager’s role

George, Vicki; Haag-Heitman, Barb

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2834.2011.01225.x

Cited by 26 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This key area – understanding the meaning of peer review – indicates a need to better define this term for staff nurses. George and Haag‐Heitman (2011) emphasize that peer review is not the same as annual performance review; it is not a managerial process and managers should only support the process and remove organisational barriers to peer review. Peer review should never be anonymous because ‘anonymous staff input has tarnished the notion of peer review for many’ (Haag‐Heitman & George 2011) and effectively represents an invitation to ‘talk behind a colleague’s back’.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing RN-to-RN peer review on clinical units

Pfeiffer

Wickline

Deetz

et al. 2011

Journal of Nursing Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

pfeiffer j.a., wickline m.a., deetz j. & berry e.s. (2012) Journal of Nursing Management 20, 390–400  Assessing RN‐to‐RN peer review on clinical units Aim The primary purpose of this study was to measure informal registered nurse (RN)‐to‐RN peer review (defined as collegial communication about the quality of nursing care) at the work‐unit level. Methods Survey design with cluster sampling of 28 hospital or ambulatory care units (n = 541 respondents). Results were compared with existing patient safety and satisfaction data. A chi‐squared test was used to compare responses against nurse characteristics. Results Nurses agreed that RN‐to‐RN peer review takes place on their units, but no correlation with patient safety and satisfaction data was found. Misunderstandings about the meaning of peer review were evident. Open‐ended comments revealed barriers to peer review: fear of retribution, language barriers and lack of professionalism. Conclusions Nurses need clarification of peer review. Issues with common language in a professional environment need to be addressed and nurses can learn collaboration from each other’s cultures. Implications for nursing management Managers should support RN‐to‐RN peer review on clinical units. Methods used here may be useful to assess current departmental nurse peer review.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing RN-to-RN peer review on clinical units

Pfeiffer

Wickline

Deetz

et al. 2011

Journal of Nursing Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Goeschel & Pronovost 2008), support this argument and highlight the importance of leadership. For instance, workload redistribution can support an increased quality of care by enabling ward managers to spend less time on administrative tasks, saving more time to spend with patients and leading to nursing peer review as a means of knowledge sharing (George & Haag-Heitman 2011) and focusing on the issue of innovation and increasing effectiveness (Locke et al 2011). Based on these arguments, we hypothesise the following:…”

Section: Control Of Care Quality In Relation To Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge sharing behaviour and intensive care nurse innovation: the moderating role of control of care quality

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…George and Haig‐Haitman () emphasize that peer review should not be associated with managerial processes and should be transparent. They further recommend avoiding anonymous feedback since this can be seen as an invitation to “gossip behind a colleagues’ back.” Branowicki, Driscoll, Hickey, Renaud, and Sporing () cite the need for peer review to be evidence‐based, nonpunitive, and confidential.…”

Section: Background Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation and evaluation of a peer review process for advanced practice nurses in a university hospital setting

Bergum¹,

Canaan²,

DeLemos³

et al. 2017

Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and purpose Over the past decade, implementation of the peer review process for the development of the advanced practice nurse (APN) has been emphasized. However, little exists in the literature regarding APN peer review. The peer review process is intended to help demonstrate competency of care, enhance quality improvement measures, and foster the professional growth of the APN. Methods APNs serving on a professional governance council within a university teaching hospital developed a model of peer review for APNs. Nine months after the tool was implemented, an anonymous follow‐up survey was conducted. A follow‐up request was sent 4 weeks later to increase the number of respondents. Likert scales were used to elicit subjective data regarding the process. Conclusions Of 81 APNs who participated in the survey, more than half (52%) felt that the process would directly improve their professional practice. Implications for practice Survey results show that the peer review process affected APN professional practice positively. Additional research might include pathways for remediation and education of staff, evaluation of alternate methods to improve application to clinical practice, and collection of outcome data. The models presented provide a foundation for future refinement to accommodate different APN practice settings.

show abstract

Nursing peer review: the manager’s role

Abstract: Peer review is an essential and often missing element of practice needed to achieve sustainable quality and safety nursing outcomes. Guidelines and principles for development are presented.

Cited by 26 publications

References 3 publications

Assessing RN-to-RN peer review on clinical units

Assessing RN-to-RN peer review on clinical units

Knowledge sharing behaviour and intensive care nurse innovation: the moderating role of control of care quality

Implementation and evaluation of a peer review process for advanced practice nurses in a university hospital setting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About