Menu Close
  • Clinical
    • In the Literature
    • Key Clinical Questions
    • Interpreting Diagnostic Tests
    • Coding Corner
    • Clinical
    • Clinical Guidelines
    • COVID-19
    • POCUS
  • Practice Management
    • Quality
    • Public Policy
    • How We Did It
    • Key Operational Question
    • Technology
    • Practice Management
  • Diversity
  • Career
    • Leadership
    • Education
    • Movers and Shakers
    • Career
    • Learning Portal
    • The Hospital Leader Blog
  • Pediatrics
  • HM Voices
    • Commentary
    • In Your Eyes
    • In Your Words
    • The Flipside
  • SHM Resources
    • Society of Hospital Medicine
    • Journal of Hospital Medicine
    • SHM Career Center
    • SHM Converge
    • Join SHM
    • Converge Coverage
    • SIG Spotlight
    • Chapter Spotlight
    • From JHM
  • Industry Content
    • Patient Monitoring with Tech
An Official Publication of
  • Clinical
    • In the Literature
    • Key Clinical Questions
    • Interpreting Diagnostic Tests
    • Coding Corner
    • Clinical
    • Clinical Guidelines
    • COVID-19
    • POCUS
  • Practice Management
    • Quality
    • Public Policy
    • How We Did It
    • Key Operational Question
    • Technology
    • Practice Management
  • Diversity
  • Career
    • Leadership
    • Education
    • Movers and Shakers
    • Career
    • Learning Portal
    • The Hospital Leader Blog
  • Pediatrics
  • HM Voices
    • Commentary
    • In Your Eyes
    • In Your Words
    • The Flipside
  • SHM Resources
    • Society of Hospital Medicine
    • Journal of Hospital Medicine
    • SHM Career Center
    • SHM Converge
    • Join SHM
    • Converge Coverage
    • SIG Spotlight
    • Chapter Spotlight
    • From JHM
  • Industry Content
    • Patient Monitoring with Tech

Internal Peer Review

As far as I can tell, few hospitalist groups conduct any sort of formal peer review. Most seem to rely on the hospital’s medical staff peer review to encourage quality of care and address shortcomings; the review is often coupled with a salary incentive paid for good performance on certain quality metrics. While these reviews are of some value, I think they are pretty blunt instruments. Every hospitalist practice should think about developing a more robust system of peer review for their group.

Review Categories

Assessment of each provider’s individual performance, whether they are an MD, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant, can be divided into three general categories. The first is the traditional “human resources” category of performance, which includes whether the person gets along well with others in the practice as well as other hospital staff, patients, and families. Does the person arrive at work when scheduled, manage time effectively, and work efficiently? Do nurses and other hospital staff have compliments or complaints about this doctor?

There is no single right approach to conducting your own peer review. Just make sure that the process is fair and meaningful for all involved.

The second category of performance can encompass the hospitalist’s business and operational contributions to the practice. Do they document, code, and bill visits correctly? Do they attend and participate in meetings and serve on one or more hospital committees?

The third category assesses measurable quality of care. This could include an assessment of mortality, readmission rate, performance on such quality metrics as core measures, and performance on selected initiatives (e.g., appropriate VTE prophylaxis). Aggregate data for these measures can be difficult to attribute to a single hospitalist, so this may require a review of individual charts instead of relying on reports generated by the hospital’s data systems.

A number of metrics might apply to more than one of the three categories. For example, documenting accurate medicine reconciliation can be thought of as both a quality issue (good for patients) and a business issue (e.g., your hospital might provide a financial reward to your group for good performance). Ensuring the referring physician is “CC’d” on all dictated reports is both a quality and business issue. It really doesn’t matter which category you put these in.

The categories I have listed, and the sample items in each, are intended as examples. You should think about the unique attributes of your practice and its current priorities in order to develop the best internal peer review system for your group. You probably will want to change metrics periodically. For example, you may choose to focus on VTE prophylaxis for now, but at some point it may make sense to replace it with a new metric, such as glycemic control.

Figure 1. Sample Peer Review Survey

The questions listed below are examples intended to get you thinking about the best questions for your own HM practice. A survey like this can be conducted via the Web (e.g., SurveyMonkey.com) in advance of a formal peer review meeting.


Rate the hospitalist on the following attributes using a five-point scale:

1 — Clearly below average for our group; needs work.

3 — Average for our group.

5 — Clearly above average for our group; serves as a role model.


  1. Overall quality of patient care provided (subjective assessment)?
  2. Does this doctor keep patients and families well informed and happy?
  3. Quality of service provided to other doctors (available, affable, etc.)?
  4. Handwriting legibility?
  5. Prepares patients well before turning them over to the next doctor (e.g., good summary notes, good signout, etc.)?
  6. Typically arrives and departs work on time?

The items below require a narrative response:

  1. Describe at least one thing this doctor does very well, and could serve as a model for others in the group.


  2. Describe at least one thing this doctor should improve.


  3. Other comments:


  • 1

    Internal Peer Review

    July 2, 2009

  • 1

    Clarion Call

    July 2, 2009

  • 1

    Bundling Bedlam

    July 2, 2009

  • Grassroots Mentorship

    July 2, 2009

  • Code Correctly

    July 2, 2009

  • Medicare: Enroll Early

    July 2, 2009

  • What is the best empiric therapy for community-acquired cellulitis?

    July 2, 2009

  • Increased Attention

    July 2, 2009

  • 1

    In the Literature

    July 1, 2009

  • 1

    Healthcare Trailblazers

    July 1, 2009

1 … 871 872 873 874 875 … 977
  • About The Hospitalist
  • Contact Us
  • The Editors
  • Editorial Board
  • Authors
  • Publishing Opportunities
  • Subscribe
  • Advertise
  • Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies.
    ISSN 1553-085X
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • SHM’s DE&I Statement
  • Cookie Preferences