tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32053362.post4332104124082700791..comments2024-03-18T06:27:51.599-04:00Comments on Not Running a Hospital: The virtues of peer-to-peer assessmentPaul Levyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17065446378970179507noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32053362.post-6526929301805793432012-02-07T06:55:25.669-05:002012-02-07T06:55:25.669-05:00You got me interested enough to google nuclear pow...You got me interested enough to google nuclear power peer to peer inspections, with some interesting results (example below, but I recommend people google for themselves; it's interesting). Note these are international inspections. Can you imagine such a thing in health care? Processes and policies are so nonstandard as to be laughable compared to other industries. And again, we kill people one at a time, not all at once, thus mitigating any public outcry. <br />While intriguing, I'm not sure I see this idea as practical. What it DOES do, however, is help us realize just how woefully far behind we are in our thinking in health care compared to other safety-conscious industries. Transformative, rather than incremental, vision is needed here. How about a nuclear regulatory commission or FAA equivalent for health care rather than the toothless inspecting agencies we have now?<br /><br />"RRS missions are peer reviews, not inspections or audits, and are conducted at the request of host nations. For the Swiss review, the IAEA assembled a team of 19 international experts from 14 countries. The experts came from Belgium, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Republic of Korea, Norway, Russia, Slovakia, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States."<br /><br />http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/2011/prn201128.html<br /><br />nonlocalAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com