scholarly journals Peer Review #1 of "Dynamic succession of substrate-associated bacterial composition and function during Ganoderma lucidum growth (v0.2)"

Author(s):  
H de Vries
1996 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 653-659 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret Balla ◽  
Barbara Knothe ◽  
Jeanette Lancaster ◽  
Shirley Prager ◽  
Josephine Beatson

Objective: This study sought to elucidate the contribution of peer review groups involving psychiatrists to quality improvement and quality care. Method: Audio-taped interviews of groups engaged in peer review were analysed using a qualitative methodology. Participants' views of the ways in which they experienced and conceptualised peer review were explored. Results: The views of participants in peer review groups were analysed, and categories evolved which identified differences in how they perceived the structure and function of group peer review. Conclusions: Participants in the groups studied perceived peer review as a professional growth forum within a quality improvement framework providing critical review of treatment, continuing education, and a sense of collegiality. Boundaries of acceptable practice were tested and defined. At its best, participation in peer review groups enhanced reflective practice which achieved new understandings of clinical work. In this regard, peer review is seen as a highly desirable method for the maintenance of professional standards.


BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e040039
Author(s):  
Jeanette Lancaster ◽  
Shirley Prager ◽  
Louise Nash ◽  
Aspasia Karageorge

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to examine Australian psychiatrists’ experience of participation in a small group learning format of continuing professional development, known as peer review groups (PRGs), with a particular emphasis on group structure and functions.MethodAn exploratory mixed-methods study comprising a survey (n=77) and semistructured interviews (n=6) with Australian psychiatrists participating in a PRG in the previous 12 months.ResultsQualitative findings indicate that PRGs address experiential learning through a focus on both breadth and specificity of work, as well as participants’ experiences. Participants described using PRGs as a forum to manage difficult and complex work (through critiquing work, learning from one another, considering theory and guidelines, benchmarking, validating, reflecting and generalising learning) and to manage stress and well-being associated with crises, everyday stress and professional isolation. Particular structural aspects of PRGs considered essential to achieve these functions were self-selection of members, self-direction of meeting content and provision of a safe environment. These findings were convergent with the quantitative findings from scale survey data. Difficulties experienced during PRG participation are also described.ConclusionQualitative and quantitative findings from psychiatry PRGs demonstrate how practice-based professional experience functions as both a source of learning and of collegial connection that contributes to well-being and reduction in professional stress. Study limitations and future research directions are discussed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document