This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Hershey, N. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Hershey, N. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Assessing Peer Review in the Quest for Improved Medical Services: Part III

University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15261

Part I of this article explored flaws in the operation of peer review in the selection of articles for journal publication and decision-making in the award of re search grants, and Part II described medical peer review, its practitioners, and the distinctions between medical peer review and other activities and proc esses aimed at improving the quality of medical per formance in hospitals. This part of the article directs attention to how the courts respond when a physician, aggrieved by an adverse determination with regard to appointment, reappointment, or clinical privileges (credentialing) by the hospital based on medical peer review, seeks redress in the courts.

American Journal of Medical Quality, Vol. 5, No. 2, 63-68 (1990)
DOI: 10.1177/0885713x9000500207


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