1. RADPEER™ Hani Abujudeh MD, MBA, FSIR Associate Professor of Radiology
Massachusetts General Hospital
Harvard Medical school

2. Disclosures
Book Royalties

3. RADPEER™
RADPEER™ is a simple tool developed to allow physicians to do peer review during the course of a day’s work.
When a new study is interpreted with an prior study for comparison, a peer review of the accuracy of the interpretation of the previous examination occurs.

4. RADPEER™ Piloted RADPEER™ in 2001 Offered to members in 2002
e RADPEER ™ developed in 2005
Scoring changes implemented in 2009 4

6. Signal events
American Medical Accreditation Program by the AMA in 1998
The publication of the, Institute of Medicine report To Err Is Human in March 2000.
An ABMS task force on the maintenance of certification, Competence Initiatives: A Status Report
Listed four components of maintenance of certification, which will be required by all specialty boards
These components are professional standing, commitment to lifelong learning and periodic self-assessment, cognitive expertise, and the evaluation of performance in practice. 6

7. ACR RADPEER
In response to the interests of the public and the health care community, the ACR convened a patient safety task force.
The task force concluded that to meet the fourth requirement of maintenance of certification
a successful peer review program must be national, uniform in structure and function across practices, accurate, facile, nonpunitive, and able to be integrated into a facility’s quality assurance program.
The task force concluded that no existing programs met these criteria 7

9. RADPEER ™
Four point scoring system: 1. Concur with interpretation 2. Discrepancy in Interpretation/not ordinarily expected to be made (understandable miss) a. unlikely to be clinically significant b. likely to be clinically significant 3. Discrepancy in Interpretation/ should be made most of the time 4. Discrepancy in Interpretation/ should be made almost every time - misinterpretation of finding Scores of 2b, 3 or 4 should be reviewed through the facility’s internal QA process prior to submission to ACR 9

10. 10

12. 12

14. RADPEER could be expanded and used as a means to
The median number of cases reviewed in RADPEER is 776 each year, which translates into 3 to 4 cases reviewed per working day.
The RADPEER system is not designed to be a sole OPPE measure, but it can be incorporated into such programs. The committee discourages the use of scores as a means of competency assessment and encourages the maintenance of the nonpunitive nature and anonymity in scoring.
RADPEER could be expanded and used as a means to
collect data on other aspects of quality and safety in radiology. 14

15. Improving the performance of the system as a whole is far more beneficial than eliminating the outliers (Deming, W.E., Out of the Crisis2000, cambridge: MIT Press.)
( assessing competence vs improving performance)

16. Over 1,170 participating groups
RADPEER™
April 2014
Over 1,170 participating groups
Over 17,500 physicians 16

17. 17

18. RADPEER™ 18

19. RADPEER™ Data submitted to ACR via website
Reports for individuals and group available electronically
ABR MOC Reports 19

20. 20

21. 21

22. RADPEER™ as a PQI Project
Radiologists can select RADPEER™ to be used as one of their projects for Maintenance of Certification for the ABR (American Board of Radiology)
The MOC process includes:
Evidence of professional standing (license)
Lifelong learning and self-assessment (SAMs, CME)
Cognitive expertise (exam)
Practice quality improvement
(PQI project such as RADPEER™) 22

23. 23

24. Cost of RADPEER™ Participation
Annual fee for participation in RADPEER™ is based on the number of physicians in the group
# Physicians
Annual Fee
2-5
$800
6-15
$1,500
16-25
$2,200
26-35
$3,000
36-45
$3,800
46-55
$4,600
56-65
$5,400
66-75
$6,200
76-85
$7,000
86-95
$7,800
96-105
$8,600
$9,400
$10,200 24

25. https://radpeer.acr.org habujudeh@partners.org25