Just Culture: Practical Implementation for Radiologist Peer Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 384-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judah Burns ◽  
Todd Miller ◽  
Jeffrey M. Weiss ◽  
Amichai Erdfarb ◽  
David Silber ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Bruno

In this chapter we will explore the issues related to individual and organizational accountability for error, particularly when a patient suffers harm that is attributable to physician error. We will review the blameless culture and “just culture” models, as well as related issues of peer-review, regulatory compliance, medicolegal, and ethical aspects of error in this context. We will discuss the ethical duty to provide open disclosure of all errors and lapses directly to patients and their families, regardless of cause (and separated from the issue of blame) and in some circumstances coupled with financial or other compensation for any harm done.


2017 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith K. Volkar ◽  
Paul Phrampus ◽  
Dennis English ◽  
Ronald Johnson ◽  
Ashley Medeiros ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Lonni Besançon ◽  
Niklas Rönnberg ◽  
Jonas Löwgren ◽  
Jonathan P. Tennant ◽  
Matthew Cooper

We present a discussion and analysis regarding the benefits and limitations of open and non-anonymized peer review based on literature results and responses to a survey on the reviewing process of alt.chi, a more or less open-review track within the CHI conference, the predominant conference in the field of human-computer interaction (HCI). This track currently is the only implementation of an open-peer-review process in the field of HCI while, with the recent increase in interest in open science practices, open review is now being considered and used in other fields. We collected 30 responses from alt.chi authors and reviewers and found that, while the benefits are quite clear and the system is generally well liked by alt.chi participants, they are reluctant to see it used in other venues. This concurs with a number of recent studies that suggest a divergence between support for a more open review process and its practical implementation. The data and scripts are available on https://osf.io/vuw7h/, and the figures and follow-up work on http://tiny.cc/OpenReviews.


Author(s):  
Lonni Besançon ◽  
Niklas Rönnberg ◽  
Jonas Löwgren ◽  
Jonathan P. Tennant ◽  
Matthew Cooper

Abstract Background Our aim is to highlight the benefits and limitations of open and non-anonymized peer review. Our argument is based on the literature and on responses to a survey on the reviewing process of alt.chi, a more or less open review track within the so-called Computer Human Interaction (CHI) conference, the predominant conference in the field of human-computer interaction. This track currently is the only implementation of an open peer review process in the field of human-computer interaction while, with the recent increase in interest in open scientific practices, open review is now being considered and used in other fields. Methods We ran an online survey with 30 responses from alt.chi authors and reviewers, collecting quantitative data using multiple-choice questions and Likert scales. Qualitative data were collected using open questions. Results Our main quantitative result is that respondents are more positive to open and non-anonymous reviewing for alt.chi than for other parts of the CHI conference. The qualitative data specifically highlight the benefits of open and transparent academic discussions. The data and scripts are available on https://osf.io/vuw7h/, and the figures and follow-up work on http://tiny.cc/OpenReviews. Conclusion While the benefits are quite clear and the system is generally well-liked by alt.chi participants, they remain reluctant to see it used in other venues. This concurs with a number of recent studies that suggest a divergence between support for a more open review process and its practical implementation.


Author(s):  
Leah E Schafer ◽  
Hannah Perry ◽  
Michael DC Fishman ◽  
Bernadette V Jakomin ◽  
Priscilla J Slanetz

Abstract Traditional score-based peer review has come under scrutiny in recent years, as studies have demonstrated it to be generally ineffective at improving quality. Many practices and programs are transitioning to a peer learning model to replace or supplement traditional peer review. Peer learning differs from traditional score-based peer review in that the emphasis is on sharing learning opportunities and creating an environment that fosters discussion of errors in a nonpunitive forum with the goal of improved patient care. Creating a just culture is central to fostering successful peer learning. In a just culture, mistakes can be discussed without shame or fear of retribution and the focus is on systems improvement rather than individual blame. Peer learning, as it pertains to breast imaging, can occur in many forms and venues. Examples of the various formats in which peer learning can occur include through individual colleague interaction, as well as divisional, multidisciplinary, department-wide, and virtual conferences, and with the assistance of artificial intelligence. Incorporating peer learning into the practice of breast imaging aims to reduce delayed diagnoses of breast cancer and optimize patient care.


2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 502-508 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc T. Edwards

In pursuit of high reliability, numerous organizations have promoted Just Culture, but its impact has never been assessed. This report combines data from a longitudinal survey–based study of clinical peer review practices in a cohort of 457 acute care hospitals with 43 measures from the Hospital Compare database and interprets them in relation to the long-term trends of Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) data on the Hospital Survey of Patient Safety Culture. In all, 211 of 270 respondents (79%) indicated that their hospital has adopted Just Culture. More than half believe that it has had a positive impact. Just Culture implementation and its degree of impact are associated with somewhat better peer review process, but not with objective measures of hospital performance. Non-Punitive Response to Error has consistently been the lowest scoring category (45% positive) in the AHRQ database. Widespread adoption of Just Culture has not reduced reluctance to report or the culture of blame it targets.


Author(s):  
Lonni Besançon ◽  
Niklas Rönnberg ◽  
Jonas Löwgren ◽  
Jonathan Tennant ◽  
Matthew Cooper

We present a discussion and analysis regarding the benefits and limitations of open and non-anonymized peer review based on literature results and responses to a survey on the reviewing process of alt.chi, a more or less open-review track within the CHI conference, the predominant conference in the field of human-computer interaction (HCI). This track currently is the only implementation of an open-peer-review process in the field of HCI while, with the recent increase in interest in open science practices, open review is now being considered and used in other fields. We collected 30 responses from alt.chi authors and reviewers and found that, while the benefits are quite clear and the system is generally well liked by alt.chi participants, they are reluctant to see it used in other venues. This concurs with a number of recent studies that suggest a divergence between support for a more open review process and its practical implementation. The data and scripts are available on https://osf.io/vuw7h/, and the figures and follow-up work on http://tiny.cc/OpenReviews.


Author(s):  
R. C. Gonzalez

Interest in digital image processing techniques dates back to the early 1920's, when digitized pictures of world news events were first transmitted by submarine cable between New York and London. Applications of digital image processing concepts, however, did not become widespread until the middle 1960's, when third-generation digital computers began to offer the speed and storage capabilities required for practical implementation of image processing algorithms. Since then, this area has experienced vigorous growth, having been a subject of interdisciplinary research in fields ranging from engineering and computer science to biology, chemistry, and medicine.


Author(s):  
C. C. Ahn ◽  
S. Karnes ◽  
M. Lvovsky ◽  
C. M. Garland ◽  
H. A. Atwater ◽  
...  

The bane of CCD imaging systems for transmission electron microscopy at intermediate and high voltages has been their relatively poor modulation transfer function (MTF), or line pair resolution. The problem originates primarily with the phosphor screen. On the one hand, screens should be thick so that as many incident electrons as possible are converted to photons, yielding a high detective quantum efficiency(DQE). The MTF diminishes as a function of scintillator thickness however, and to some extent as a function of fluorescence within the scintillator substrates. Fan has noted that the use of a thin layer of phosphor beneath a self supporting 2μ, thick Al substrate might provide the most appropriate compromise for high DQE and MTF in transmission electron microcscopes which operate at higher voltages. Monte Carlo simulations of high energy electron trajectories reveal that only little beam broadening occurs within this thickness of Al film. Consequently, the MTF is limited predominantly by broadening within the thin phosphor underlayer. There are difficulties however, in the practical implementation of this design, associated mostly with the mechanical stability of the Al support film.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document