This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

W. Dale Overfield, DDS, MD
Puyallup, Wash

JAMA. 1992;268(19):2648.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—The article on peer review organization methods by Rubin et al¹ was interesting and its results conform to my empiric observation and bias.

It is also my bias that the detection of quality problems on the part of physicians is probably not of value. It is my opinion that most problems are recognized by the physician and self-corrected. It would also be my bias that mistakes occur at a relatively continuous level and that picking up a mistake does not change overall quality of care.

I would be interested to know whether there has been any change in overall morbidity or mortality from the period before peer review organization review processes were instituted to the present. I suspect that there has been no substantive change in outcome as a result of peer review organization review processes.

This same sort of outcome analysis that is starting to . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?