0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Resident Forum |

Protecting Resident Performance Evaluations Under Peer Review Immunity Law FREE

Douglas Beall, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Prepared by Ashish Bajaj, Department of Resident Physician Services, American Medical Association.


JAMA. 1998;280(2):192C. doi:10.1001/jama.280.2.192.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

PROTECTING RESIDENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS UNDER PEER REVIEW IMMUNITY LAW

All 50 states and the District of Columbia have enacted peer review statutes that provide varying degrees of immunity to those participating in medical peer review activities. These statutes state that the proceedings, findings, and records of peer review committees are protected from discovery and are normally inadmissible as evidence in judicial or administrative proceedings. The fundamental reason for preserving the confidentiality of these proceedings is to ensure a high quality of peer review activity leading to high-quality patient care. Unfortunately, residents' performance evaluations and related documents are not always similarly protected. These documents can only be adequately protected if they are specifically mentioned in a state's statute governing peer review protections.

This lack of protection was proved in a recent medical liability case in Illinois (Thomas v Northwestern Memorial Hospital; No 94, L 7842). In this case a patient claimed that a resident physician and attending physicians had been negligent in providing medical care. The plaintiff alleged that the physicians had not responded appropriately to signs of fetal distress during a prolonged period of induced labor. The plaintiff's attorney made a motion to compel the defendants to submit documents that described the resident's prior obstetrical/general medical experience and lists of cases, as well as the resident's performance evaluations and other personnel files concerning performance.

The defendants had refused to submit these documents, arguing that resident evaluations, examinations, and personnel files are protected by Illinois Medical Studies Act 735 ILCS 5/8-2101, which was designed to offer peer review immunity. The Circuit Court found no support in case law to uphold the defendants' contention that the files were protected by the Medical Studies Act.

The Illinois Supreme Court recently emphasized in Roach v Springfield Clinic (157 Ill2d 29, 623 NE2d 246 [1993])that information gathered outside a peer review process is not covered by peer review immunity privilege and that the privilege can only be attached to information produced by an identifiable hospital peer review committee. If information that is gathered outside the peer review committee is subsequently sent to the committee, it is not considered privileged. Therefore, if resident performance evaluation documents are not generated as part of a formal peer review process, they are not protected under peer review immunity.

The US Congress has provided protection to participants of quality control programs and to individuals who generate medical quality assurance records. Peer review immunity protection can, and should, be extended to individuals who serve on peer review committees. This would protect the privacy of committee proceedings.

Residents need protection under peer review immunity law; they are considered peers by the hospital and their evaluators. If this is not defined adequately in a hospital's medical staff bylaws, evaluation documents may be found to be nothing more than an extension of the residents' medical school education transcripts. We need a more comprehensive statute producing confidentiality of medical review programs (including resident evaluations). Such a statute would offer residents protections that are similar to those of practicing physicians and would hopefully foster a continuous performance review process that would monitor and improve the quality of care provided by residents.

Figures

Tables

References

Letters

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles