Clinical peer review in the United States: History, legal development and subsequent abuse

Promoting diversity, equity and inclusion awareness in clinical documentation through postgraduate year one training

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

As healthcare providers increasingly focus on emerging issues of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in patient care, less is known about the training in postgraduate year one (PGY1) pharmacy residency on DEI clinical documentation considerations. This pilot project explored whether training, discussion and self-reflection within a peer review activity promoted DEI self-awareness in clinical documentation through a centralized curriculum of a multisite PGY1.

EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND SETTING

Building upon an established peer review of clinical documentation activity, PGY1 pharmacy residents practicing in ambulatory care settings received training on DEI considerations and completed small and large group discussions, a post-activity mixed methods survey with self-reflection prompts, and a three-month follow-up survey.

FINDINGS

Twenty-two residents participated in the peer review of clinical documentation activity, DEI training and discussions. Twelve residents completed the post-activity survey with reflection prompts; 6 (50%) reported similar previous DEI training prior to residency. After the DEI training and discussions, 12 (100%) agreed or strongly agreed that their awareness of DEI documentation considerations increased; 10 (83%) would document their submitted notes differently, while one resident was unsure and one would not make changes. Twelve residents completed the follow-up survey three months following the activity. Themes from the free-text responses on key learnings collected post-activity and three-month post (respectively) included: 1) new knowledge, increased self-awareness, and intended action and 2) increased self-awareness and changes in note-making convention.

SUMMARY

Integrating DEI training, discussion, and self-reflection prompts into a peer review clinical documentation activity increased self-awareness and knowledge of DEI considerations and promoted intended changes in patient care documentation for pharmacy residents. Regardless of previous training, residents reported continued self-awareness and changes in documentation conventions continued three months later.

Reframing the Morbidity and Mortality Conference: The Impact of a Just Culture

ABSTRACT

Morbidity and mortality (M&M) conferences are prevalent in all fields of medicine. Historically, they arose out a desire to improve medical care. Nevertheless, the goals of M&M conferences are often poorly defined, at odds with one another, and do not support a just culture. We differentiate among the various possible goals of an M&M and review the literature for strategies that have been shown to achieve these goals. Based on the literature, we outline an ideal M&M structure within the context of just culture: The process starts with robust adverse event and near miss reporting, followed by careful case selection, excluding cases solely attributable to individual error. Prior to the M&M, the case should be openly discussed with involved members and should be reviewed using a selected framework. The goal of the M&M should be selected and clearly defined, and the presentation format and rules of conduct should all conform to the selected presentation goal. The audience should ideally be multidisciplinary and multispecialty. The M&M should conclude with concrete tasks and assigned follow-up. The entire process should be conducted in a peer review protected format within an environment promoting psychological safety. We conclude with future directions for M&Ms.

Best Practices for Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Morbidity and Mortality Conferences

Cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) morbidity and mortality conferences (MMCs) are a critical component of CCL quality improvement programs and are important for the education of cardiology trainees and the lifelong learning of CCL physicians and team members. Despite their fundamental role in the functioning of the CCL, no consensus exists on how CCL MMCs should identify and select cases for review, how they should be conducted, and how results should be used to improve CCL quality. In addition, medicolegal ramifications of CCL MMCs are not well understood. This document from the American College of Cardiology's Interventional Section attempts to clarify current issues and options in the conduct of CCL MMCs and to recommend best practices for their conduct.

Effect of clinical peer review on mortality in patients ventilated for more than 24 hours: a cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although clinical peer review is a well-established instrument for improving quality of care, clinical effectiveness is unclear.

METHODS

In a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, we randomly assigned 60 German Initiative Qualitätsmedizin member hospitals with the highest mortality rates in ventilated patients in 2016 to intervention and control groups. The primary outcome was hospital mortality rate in patients ventilated fore more than 24 hours. Clinical peer review was conducted in intervention group hospitals only. We assessed the impact of clinical peer review on mortality using a difference-in-difference approach by applying weighted least squares (WLS) regression to changes in age-adjusted and sex-adjusted standardised mortality ratios (SMRs) 1 year before and 1 year after treatment. Recommendations for improvement from clinical peer review and hospital survey data were used for impact and process analysis.

RESULTS

We analysed 12 058 and 13 016 patients ventilated fore more than 24 hours in the intervention and control hospitals within the 1-year observation period. In-hospital mortality rates and SMRs were 40.6% and 1.23 in intervention group and 41.9% and 1.28 in control group hospitals in the preintervention period, respectively. The groups showed similar hospital (bed size, ownership) and patient (age, sex, mortality, main indications) characteristics. WLS regression did not yield a significant difference between intervention and control groups regarding changes in SMRs (estimate=0.04, 95% CI= -0.05 to 0.13, p=0.38). Mortality remained high in both groups (intervention: 41.8%, control: 42.1%). Impact and process analysis indicated few perceived outcome improvements or implemented process improvements following the introduction of clinical peer review.

CONCLUSIONS

This study did not provide evidence for reductions in mortality in patients ventilated for more than 24 hours due to clinical peer review. A stronger focus on identification of structures and care processes related to mortality is required to improve the effectiveness of clinical peer review.

Mechanisms of Peer Review and Their Potential Impact on Neurosurgeons: A Pilot Survey

BACKGROUND

Physician peer review is a universal practice in U.S. hospitals. While there are many commonalities in peer review procedures, many of them established by law, there is also much institutional variation, which should be well understood by practicing neurosurgeons.

METHODS

A 13-question pilot survey was conducted of a sample of 5 hospital systems with whom members of the Council of State Neurosurgical Societies Medico-Legal Committee are affiliated. Survey questions were constructed to qualitatively assess 3 features of hospital peer review: 1) committee composition and process, 2) committee outcomes, and 3) legal protections and ramifications.

RESULTS

The most common paradigm for a physician peer review committee was an interdisciplinary group with representatives from most major medical and surgical subspecialties. Referrals for peer review inquiry could be made by any hospital employee and were largely anonymous. Most institutions included a precommittee screening process conducted by the physician peer review committee leadership. The most common outcomes of an inquiry were resolution with no further action or ongoing focused professional practice evaluation. Hospital privileges were only rarely reported to be revoked or terminated. Members of the physician peer review committee were consistently protected from retaliatory litigation related to peer review participation. Most hospitals had a multilayered decision process and availability of appeal to minimize potential for punitive investigations.

CONCLUSIONS

According to a recent study, only 62% of hospitals consider their peer review process to be highly or significantly standardized. This pilot survey provides commentary of potential areas of commonality and variation among hospital peer review practices.

Is There a Relationship Between Facility Peer Review Findings and Quality in the Veterans Health Administration?

BACKGROUND

The aim of clinical peer review (PR) is to improve facility health care quality. However, prior authors have shown that PR may be biased, have rater reliability concerns, or be used for punitive reasons. It is important to determine whether facility PR processes are related to objective facility quality of care.

METHODS

We collected proportion of PR findings that "most experienced and competent clinicians may have managed the case differently" or "most experienced and competent clinicians would have managed the case differently" as an objective measure of facility PR processes and outcomes. We correlated these with facility quality metrics for 2019.

RESULTS

PR findings were not associated with facility quality metrics but were strongly associated with previous year findings.

CONCLUSIONS

This study describes a potentially new source of bias in PR and demonstrates that objective facility outcomes are not related to individual PR findings.

Peer Review Processes for Quality Improvement in Health Care Settings and Their Implications for Health Care Professionals: A Meta-Ethnography

INTRODUCTION

Peer review processes are used to improve professional practice in health care, although no synthesis of existing studies has yet been undertaken. These processes are included in the UK professional revalidation processes for medical practitioners and nurses and midwives but not for allied health professionals. The purpose of this review was to identify, appraise, and synthesize the available qualitative evidence regarding health care professionals' experiences and views about peer review processes and to explore the implications for health care professionals in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

Qualitative review using meta-ethnography, reported according to Meta-ethnography Reporting Guidance guidance. Search strategy was developed using MeSH headings. The following data sources were searched: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, MEDLINE, and Ovid full text (between May 2007 and May 2019) (one reviewer with librarian support) plus manual searching. Screening, data extraction, and evaluation were undertaken independently by two reviewers. Studies were independently appraised for quality by two reviewers to identify concepts which were compared and developed into a conceptual model by the team.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies (937 participants) were included. Findings explored peer review processes and three key components, namely, purpose, process, and peers. Participants' perceptions of peer review processes were categorized by four main concepts: value/benefits, reflection/shared learning, anxiety about the process, and how to improve "buy-in."

DISCUSSION

Evidence supports the introduction and use of peer review processes as a quality improvement tool. Further research exploring whether/how to incorporate peer review processes into the process of assessing continuing fitness to practice for allied health professionals seems appropriate. The time and resources required to implement peer review processes are considered barriers to implementation.

Transforming the Culture of Peer Review: Implementation Across Three Departments in an Academic Health Center

OBJECTIVES

Although many health care institutions believe that clinical peer review is vital for identifying and improving quality of care, peer review is perceived by many clinicians as variable and inherently punitive. Successful peer review requires institutional leadership and adoption of a just culture approach to investigating and determining accountability for medical errors that result in harm.

METHODS

We describe how an academic medical center implemented and adapted its clinical peer review processes to be consistent with just culture theory and provide a roadmap that other institutions may follow. Specific examples of peer review are highlighted to show how the process improved patient safety in the departments of emergency medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics.

RESULTS

The most significant process improvement was shifting from a tradition of assigning letter grades of "A," "B," or "C" to determine whether preventable adverse events were caused by "human error," "at-risk behavior," or "reckless behavior." This categorization of human behaviors enabled patient safety officers within 3 departments to develop specific interventions to protect patients and enlist physician support for improving clinical systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Each department's success was due to recognition of different patient and provider cultures that offer unique challenges. The transformation of peer review was a crucial first step to shift perceptions of peer review from a punitive to a constructive process intended to improve patient safety. Our experience with reengineering clinical peer review shows the importance of focusing on just culture as a key method to prevent patient harm.

Clinical peer Review; A mandatory process with potential inherent bias in desperate need of reform

Clinical peer review, a process mandated across all hospitals in the USA, originated as a measure to protect patients by ensuring a standardized level of medical service that is provided by all practicing physicians. The process involves retrospective chart reviewing to assess the quality of patients' care provided by physicians as well as adherence to the most appropriate guidelines. The process of clinical peer review almost entirely serves its ultimate purpose in quality preservation; However, certain laws gave immunity to reviewers resulting in abuse and using the clinical peer review process for secondary gain. Some notable cases of abuse were discussed in the article, we also shed light on two forms of bias that can potentially interfere with the review process and the dreaded outcomes that come along a negative peer review. We also propose methods to overcome these biases to further standardize and improve this crucial process.

A SURVEY OF INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGISTS REGARDING THE USE OF MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY CONFERENCING IN DEPARTMENTAL QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGAMS

PURPOSE

Investigate the degree to which Morbidity and Mortality (M&M) conferencing is utilized in Interventional Radiology (IR), identify impediments to its adoption, and assess the experience of those using this tool.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Members of the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) were offered a 10-question survey of practices and experiences regarding M&M conferencing within their Quality Assessment (QA) programs.

RESULTS

Among 604 respondents, 37.8% were university-based practitioners and 60% from outside of university practices. 43% of respondents reported practicing 100% IR, with 28.5% practicing 75-99% and 11% practicing IR less than 50% of the time. The use of M&M conferencing was significantly greater in university practices (90.7%) than in non-university practices (37.1%) and among practitioners performing at least 75% IR (71.2%) than among those practicing less than 75% (28.8%). Conferences were held monthly (66.6%) or more often and the majority (56%) of the events identified were scored using the SIR severity score. Roughly 20% of M&M conferences were multidisciplinary, shared most commonly with vascular surgery. The reasons cited for not using M&M included lack of time and the logistical challenges of the process. However, among those who participate in M&M conferences, the QA goals of the conference were met at very high rates.

CONCLUSIONS

M&M conferencing is well established in university IR programs and among full-time practitioners, but much less so elsewhere. For those sites that do not utilize M&M conferencing, there may be considerable benefit to addressing the obstacles that are limiting their implementation of this tool.

Peer review and its ethical implications

Peer review is an essential tool for institutions and providers to meet the modern goals of safety and quality in health care. It is a mechanism that leads to a just culture within a health care institution whereby errors and complications are considered products of the system rather than isolated actions by an individual. The benefits and potential drawbacks of peer review are outlined in this review with a special emphasis on the interface between peer review and principles of medical ethics. It is argued that peer review, in the ideal setting, is founded upon the principles of beneficence and justice, and to varying levels on non-maleficence and autonomy.

The Medical Legal Environment in Neurosurgery: An Informative Overview of the Stages of Litigation and Distinct Challenges

Medical malpractice litigation is something that every neurosurgeon encounters in his or her career and causes significant strife to amateur physicians attempting to navigate the medicolegal process. Neurosurgery in particular is one of the highest risk specialties for litigation. This calls to order the importance of a clear understanding of the medicolegal proceedings that may follow after a complaint has been filed. This report describes the steps to be taken by the physician in the instance that litigation is expected or considered a possibility. We describe the elements that comprise a medical malpractice claim, details of the lawsuit process including hospital peer review and expert witness selection, and how to communicate appropriately with the patients and their families in an empathetic way. It is imperative to gain an appropriate understanding of the entirety of the malpractice claim process to ease the anxiety of litigation for the physician and decrease the amount of avoidable complications.

Credentialing, Certification, and Peer Review Essentials for the Neurosurgeon

Credentialing and certification are essential processes during hiring to ensure that the physician is competent and possesses the qualifications and skill sets claimed. Peer review ensures the continuing evolution of these skills to meet a standard of care. We have provided an overview and discussion of these processes in the United States. Credentialing is the process by which a physician is determined to be competent and able to practice, used to ensure that medical staff meets specific standards, and to grant operative privileges at an institution. Certification is a standardized affirmation of a physician's competence on a nationwide basis. Although not legally required to practice in the United States, many institutions emphasize certification for full privileges on an ongoing basis at a hospital. In the United States, peer review of adverse events is a mandatory prerequisite for accreditation. The initial lack of standardization led to the development of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act, which protects those involved in the peer review process from litigation, and the National Provider Databank, which was established as a national database to track misconduct. A focus on quality improvement in the peer review process can lead to improved performance and patient outcomes. A thorough understanding of the processes of credentialing, certification, and peer review in the United States will benefit neurosurgeons by allowing them to know what institutions are looking for as well and their rights and responsibilities in any given situation. It could also be useful to compare these policies and practices in the United States to those in other countries.

Education, Ethics, and History: The Peer Review Process in the US

Despite the near-universal acceptance of the benefits of a sound peer review process (PRP), the topic of peer review remains a source of controversy among surgeons. The current PRP is plagued by heterogeneity across different hospital and institutional systems. These inconsistencies, combined with a perceived lack of fairness inherent to the PRP in some institutions, led to concerns among practicing surgeons. In this review of the relevant literature on the PRP, we attempted to provide some context and insight into the history of the PRP, its role, its shortcomings, its potential abuses, and some key requirements for its successful execution.

Proposal of a Standardized Questionnaire to Structure Clinical Peer Reviews of Mortality and Failure of Rescue in Pancreatic Surgery

Background: Quality management tools such as clinical peer reviews facilitate root cause analysis and may, ultimately, help to reduce surgery-related morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability of a standardized questionnaire for clinical peer reviews in pancreatic surgery. Methods: All cases of in-hospital-mortality following pancreatic surgery at two high-volume centers (n = 86) were reviewed by two pancreatic surgeons. A standardized mortality review questionnaire was developed and applied to all cases. In a second step, 20 cases were randomly assigned to an online re-review that was completed by seven pancreatic surgeons. The overall consistency of the results between the peer review and online re-review was determined by Cohen’s kappa (κ). The inter-rater reliability of the online re-review was assessed by Fleiss’ kappa (κ). Results: The clinical peer review showed that 80% of the patient mortality was related to surgery. Post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (36%) followed by post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH) (22%) were the most common surgical underlying (index) complications leading to in-hospital mortality. Most of the index complications yielded in abdominal sepsis (62%); 60% of the cases exhibited potential of improvement, especially through timely diagnosis and therapy (42%). There was a moderate to substantial strength of agreement between the peer review and the online re-review in regard to the category of death (surgical vs. non-surgical; κ = 0.886), type of surgical index complication (κ = 0.714) as well as surgical and non-surgical index complications (κ = 0.492 and κ = 0.793). Fleiss’ kappa showed a moderate to substantial inter-rater agreement of the online re-review in terms of category of death (κ = 0.724), category of common surgical index complications (κ = 0.455) and surgical index complication (κ = 0.424). Conclusion: The proposed questionnaire to structure clinical peer reviews is a reliable tool for root cause analyses of in-hospital mortality and may help to identify specific options to improve outcomes in pancreatic surgery. However, the reliability of the peer feedback decreases with an increasing specificity of the review questions.

Radiologist Opinions of a Quality Assurance Program: The Interaction Between Error, Emotion, and Preventative Action

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To investigate inter-relationships between radiologist opinions of a quality assurance (QA) program, QA Committee communications, negative emotions, self-identified risk factors, and preventive actions taken following major errors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 48 question electronic survey was distributed to all 431 radiologists within the same teleradiology organization between June 15 and July 3, 2018. Two reminders were sent during the survey time period. Descriptive statistics were generated, and comparisons were made with Fisher exact test. Significance level was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Response rate was 67.5% (291/431), and 72.5% of respondents completed all survey questions. A total of 64.3% of respondents were male, and the highest proportion of radiologists (28.9%, 187/291) had been in practice >20 years. Preventative actions following an error were positively correlated to a higher opinion of the QA process, self-identification of personal risk factors for error, and greater negative emotions following an error (all p < 0.05). A higher opinion of communications with the QA committee was associated with a positive opinion of the QA process (p < 0.001). An inverse relationship existed between negative emotion and opinion of QA committee communications (p < 0.05) and negative emotion and opinion of the QA process (p < 0.05). Radiologist gender and full time versus part time status had a significant effect on perception of the QA process (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Radiologist opinions of their institutional QA process was related to the number of negative emotions experienced and preventative actions taken following major errors. Nurturing trust and incorporating more positive feedback in the QA process may improve interactions with QA Committees and mitigate future errors.

Collaborative Learning in Radiology: From Peer Review to Peer Learning and Peer Coaching

BACKGROUND

A Radiology Research Alliance Task Force was assembled in 2018 to review the literature on peer review and report on best practices for peer learning and peer coaching.

FINDINGS

This report provides a historical perspective on peer review and the transition to peer collaborative learning and peer coaching. Most forms of current peer review have fulfilled regulatory requirements but have failed to significantly impact quality improvement or learning opportunities. Peer learning involves joint intellectual efforts by two or more individuals to study best practices and review error collaboratively. Peer coaching is a process in which individuals in a trusted environment work to expand, refine, and build new skills in order to facilitate self-directed learning and professional growth. We discuss the value in creating opportunities for peer learning and peer coaching.

CONCLUSION

Peer collaborative learning combined with peer coaching provides opportunities for teams to learn and grow together, benefit from each other's expertise and experience, improve faculty morale, and provide more opportunities for collaborations between faculty.

Preventing patient harm via adverse event review: An APSA survey regarding the role of morbidity and mortality (M&M) conference

INTRODUCTION

Peer-review endeavors represent the continual learning environment critical for a culture of patient safety. Morbidity and mortality (M&M) conferences are designed to review adverse events to prevent future similar events. The extent to which pediatric surgeons participate in M&M, and believe M&M improves patient safety, is unknown.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of the American Pediatric Surgical Association membership was conducted to evaluate participation in and perception of M&M conferences. Closed and open-ended questions were provided to gauge participation and perceptions of M&M effectiveness. Standard frequency analyses and tests of associations between M&M program attributes and surgeons' perceptions of effectiveness were performed.

RESULTS

The response rate was 38% (353/928). Most surgeons (85%) reported that they always participate in M&M, but only 64% believe M&M is effective in changing practice or prevention of future adverse events. Effective M&Ms were more likely to emphasize loop closure, multidisciplinary participation, standardized assessment of events, and connection to quality improvement efforts.

CONCLUSIONS

Most pediatric surgeons participate in M&M, but many doubt its effectiveness. We identified attributes of M&M conferences that are perceived to be effective. Further investigation is needed to identify how to optimally utilize peer-review programs to prevent adverse events and improve patient safety.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

V.

How broad are state physician health program descriptions of physician impairment?

BACKGROUND

Physician health program websites in 23 states provide many descriptions of possible physician impairment. This study sought to determine whether these descriptions are so broad that almost everyone might potentially be suspected of being impaired given these descriptions.

METHODS

The authors randomly selected 25 descriptions of impairment and then presented them anonymously online to members of the general population in full-time employment through Amazon's Mechanical Turk (N = 199). Half of the respondents randomly received a narrowly worded version, and half received a broadly worded version of the survey questions.

RESULTS

In the narrowly worded version of the survey, 70.9% of respondents endorsed at least one description of impairment, and 59.2% endorsed more than one. In the broadly phrased version, 96.9% endorsed at least one description, and 95.8% endorsed more than one. These respondents endorsed a median of 10 out of 25 (40%) descriptions.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings call into question whether these descriptions really identify persons with poor performance or who pose a high risk of substantial, imminent harm to self or others in the workplace. They also demonstrate the extent to which these descriptions could potentially be misapplied and brand almost anyone as impaired.

A Systematic Approach to Clinical Peer Review in a Critical Access Hospital

Purpose:

Clinical provider peer review (CPPR) is a process for evaluating a patient's experience in encounters of care. It is part of ongoing professional practice evaluation and focused professional practice evaluation—important contributors to provider credentialing and privileging. Critical access hospitals are hindered in CPPR by having a limited number of providers, shortages of staff resources, and relationships among staff members that make unbiased review difficult. Small departments within larger institutions may face similar challenges.

Methods:

A CPPR process created at Mayo Clinic Health System is described. It involved a case review questionnaire built on the Institute of Medicine “Six Aims for Changing the Health Care System,” a standardized intervention algorithm and tracking tool.

Outcomes:

During 2007 through 2014, a total of 994 cases were reviewed; 31% led to provider dialog and education or intervention. Findings were applied to core measure processes with success rate going from 87% to 97%. Changes were adopted in end-of-life care, contributing to a 50% reduction in all-cause mortality rate.

Conclusions:

Providing peer review tools to a critical access hospital can keep peer review within a group with knowledge of the individual provider's practice and can make process improvement the everyday work of those involved.

Do state physician health programs encourage referrals that violate the Americans with Disabilities Act?

The websites of many physician health programs provide lists describing signs of impairment or indications to refer physician-employees for evaluation and possible treatment. This study aimed (1) to determine how many of these descriptions likely provide physicians' employers with sufficient evidence to legally request mental health examinations under the general regulations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and (2) to find out who they described. The authors applied US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance documents and sought expert legal advice to evaluate the descriptions for their consistency with the ADA. They used directed content analysis to review and code these descriptions into categories. Very few, if any, of the 571 descriptions appeared to provide sufficient evidence for employers to request an examination under the ADA. About 14%, however, could refer to physicians attempting to defend themselves, assert their ADA rights, or otherwise complain about the hospital; and 27% either described physicians who complain or else had discriminatory effects in one of several different ways. Leaders within the medical field should ensure that their policies and state laws pertaining to physician impairment comply with and incorporate the language of the ADA. They should also reevaluate the functions of these policies, laws, and physician health programs, and the implications for patient safety, physician wellness, suicide, and other important issues.

Advances in endoscopic balloon therapy for weight loss and its limitations

The field of medical and surgical weight loss is undergoing an explosion of new techniques and devices. A lot of these are geared towards endoscopic approaches rather than the conventional and more invasive laparoscopic or open approach. One such recent advance is the introduction of intrgastric balloons. In this article, we discuss the recently Food and Drug Administration approved following balloons for weight loss: the Orbera™ Intragastric Balloon System (Apollo Endosurgery Inc, Austin, TX, United States), the ReShape® Integrated Dual Balloon System (ReShape Medical, Inc., San Clemente, CA, United States), and the Obalon (Obalon® Therapeutics, Inc.). The individual features of each of these balloons, the method of introduction and removal, and the expected weight loss and possible complications are discussed. This review of the various balloons highlights the innovation in the field of weight loss.

Peer Review and Surgical Innovation: Robotic Surgery and Its Hurdles

The peer review processes as outlined in the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) is meant ensure quality standard of care through a self-policing mechanism by the medical community. This process grants immunity for people filing a peer review, which is meant to protect whistleblowers. However, it also creates a loophole that can be used maliciously to hinder competition. This is accentuated when surgeons are integrating new technologies, such as robotic surgery, into their practice. With more than 2000 da Vinci robots in use and more than 300 new units being shipped each year, robotic surgery has become a mainstay in the surgical field. The applications for robots continue to expand as surgeons discover their expanding capability. We need a better peer review process. That ensures the peer review is void of competitive bias. Peer reviewers need to be familiar with the procedure and the technology. The current process could stymie innovation in the name of competition.