In my first national survey of clinical peer review practices, I found wide variation in the rates of pre-review screening and in the proportion of screened cases that proceed to formal peer review. Even so, there was no association with the perceived effectiveness of the program.
Screened cases are not generally subject to clinical performance measurements. Thus, the pre-review screening process is of concern as a potential source of bias and inefficiency.
The inefficiency arises from the effort expended to review the case without capturing any useful information. This report helps the committee charged with governing the overall peer review process keep tabs on the variation among the various review committees.