Focusing on Content: Discourse in L2 Peer Review Groups

TESOL Journal ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 698-720 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oksana Vorobel ◽  
Deoksoon Kim
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Peer Review Groups

Group Peer Review in Psychiatry: The Relationship to Quality Improvement and Quality Care

1996 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 653-659 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret Balla ◽  
Barbara Knothe ◽  
Jeanette Lancaster ◽  
Shirley Prager ◽  
Josephine Beatson
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Reflective Practice ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Professional Growth ◽  
Qualitative Methodology ◽  
Quality Care ◽  
Clinical Work ◽  
And Function ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Peer Review Groups

Objective: This study sought to elucidate the contribution of peer review groups involving psychiatrists to quality improvement and quality care. Method: Audio-taped interviews of groups engaged in peer review were analysed using a qualitative methodology. Participants' views of the ways in which they experienced and conceptualised peer review were explored. Results: The views of participants in peer review groups were analysed, and categories evolved which identified differences in how they perceived the structure and function of group peer review. Conclusions: Participants in the groups studied perceived peer review as a professional growth forum within a quality improvement framework providing critical review of treatment, continuing education, and a sense of collegiality. Boundaries of acceptable practice were tested and defined. At its best, participation in peer review groups enhanced reflective practice which achieved new understandings of clinical work. In this regard, peer review is seen as a highly desirable method for the maintenance of professional standards.

An Exploration of the Quality of Peer Review Group Activities within Australasia

1996 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 660-666 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sadie Robertson ◽  
Gordon Parker ◽  
Simon Byrne ◽  
Murray Wright
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Clinical Work ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
Practice Model ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Review Group ◽  
Phase Study ◽  
Process And Outcome ◽  
Peer Review Groups

Objective: To describe a two-phase study of the structure of Australasian psychiatrist peer review groups. Method (Phase one): Initially, information was sought from chairskoordinators of psychiatrist peer review groups regarding the nature and organisation of their group. Results (Phase one): One hundred and three questionnaires were returned describing a number of models of peer review. Three principal models were identified: a teaching hospital model, a private practice model, and a private institution model. Method (Phase two): The second-phase questionnaire sought information on the quality of the review, using six proposed standards developed by the Quality Assurance Committee of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. Results (Phase two): Many groups indicated that four of the proposed standards (those relating to documentation, having clear goals, reviewing actual clinical cases, and rigorous protection of confidentiality) were either already being followed or would be relatively easy to implement. The remaining two proposed standards (including structure, process and outcome dimensions of health care in the case discussion, and the use of explicit criteria) presented more difficulty. Conclusion: The application of such standards to peer review group meetings should assist groups to provide a forum for presentation and evaluation of clinical work where participants know they will be challenged in an environment which is both supportive and educational.

scholarly journals The development of quality circles/peer review groups as a method of quality improvement in Europe.

2003 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 443-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Beyer ◽  
FM Gerlach ◽  
U Flies ◽  
R Grol ◽  
Z Król ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Quality Circles ◽  
Peer Review Groups

scholarly journals Psychiatry peer review groups in Australia: a mixed-methods exploration of structure and function

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e040039
Author(s):  
Jeanette Lancaster ◽  
Shirley Prager ◽  
Louise Nash ◽  
Aspasia Karageorge
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Group Structure ◽  
Continuing Professional Development ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Professional Stress ◽  
Stress Study ◽  
And Function ◽  
Peer Review Groups

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to examine Australian psychiatrists’ experience of participation in a small group learning format of continuing professional development, known as peer review groups (PRGs), with a particular emphasis on group structure and functions.MethodAn exploratory mixed-methods study comprising a survey (n=77) and semistructured interviews (n=6) with Australian psychiatrists participating in a PRG in the previous 12 months.ResultsQualitative findings indicate that PRGs address experiential learning through a focus on both breadth and specificity of work, as well as participants’ experiences. Participants described using PRGs as a forum to manage difficult and complex work (through critiquing work, learning from one another, considering theory and guidelines, benchmarking, validating, reflecting and generalising learning) and to manage stress and well-being associated with crises, everyday stress and professional isolation. Particular structural aspects of PRGs considered essential to achieve these functions were self-selection of members, self-direction of meeting content and provision of a safe environment. These findings were convergent with the quantitative findings from scale survey data. Difficulties experienced during PRG participation are also described.ConclusionQualitative and quantitative findings from psychiatry PRGs demonstrate how practice-based professional experience functions as both a source of learning and of collegial connection that contributes to well-being and reduction in professional stress. Study limitations and future research directions are discussed.

Effects of Peer-Review Groups on Physicians’ Practice

1995 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 107-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monika Grüßer ◽  
Petra Hartmann ◽  
Uwe Bott ◽  
Peter Kronsbein ◽  
Viktor Jörgens
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Peer Review Groups

Group Peer Review: A Questionnaire-Based Survey

1996 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 643-652 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josephine Beatson ◽  
Nola Rushford ◽  
George Halasz ◽  
Jeanette Lancaster ◽  
Shirley Prager
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Professional Standards ◽  
Effective Response ◽  
Professional Accountability ◽  
Educational Benefit ◽  
Group Functioning ◽  
Constructive Criticism ◽  
Peer Review Groups

Objective: This paper presents the findings from a questionnaire-based survey of psychiatrists designed to elucidate the positive and negative aspects of group peer review and its perceived place in accountability procedures, and to provide information about how accountability through group peer review might be improved. Method: Three hundred and eighty-eight psychiatrists were surveyed via mail-out questionnaire. Demographic data, details of groups, and perceptions of beneficial and detrimental effects of group peer review were sought from group participants and non-participants. Attitudes of participants were compared with those of non-participants. Features of groups related to satisfaction in participants were examined. Results: The majority of the 170 respondents participating in groups regarded peer review as a means of maintaining and improving skills, sharing ideas and methods, receiving constructive criticism and feedback, of educational benefit and an important source of professional accountability. Non-participants, while less positive overall, responded equally that participation in peer review groups would be an effective response to accountability procedures. Potential detrimental effects and problems with the functioning of peer review groups were elucidated. Conclusions: Group peer review contributes significantly to professional accountability and education in well-functioning groups. Further strategies for the facilitation of group functioning and for the processing of problems arising in group peer review need to be developed to optimise its contribution to the maintenance and improvement of professional standards.

Where do Peer Review Groups fit in the international Continuing Professional Development literature?

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 651-654
Author(s):  
Aspasia Karageorge ◽  
Jeanette Lancaster ◽  
Shirley Prager ◽  
Louise Nash
Keyword(s):  
Professional Development ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Small Group ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Group Learning ◽  
Continuing Professional Development ◽  
Small Group Learning ◽  
Development Literature ◽  
Peer Review Groups

Objectives: To describe what is reported in the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) literature on small group learning formats in medicine, including the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) CPD Peer Review Groups (PRGs). Method: A literature review of international peer-reviewed publications in relation to the use of small group learning formats for CPD in medicine. Results: Small groups are commonly used as a learning format in medical CPD, primarily in general practice, but are little researched. Such groups take differing forms and they are valued by participants for a range of purposes, having effects on professionalism, clinical performance and doctors’ wellbeing. Conclusion: We believe that the contribution of these groups to medical CPD should be further explored. To this end, this review forms the first part of a research project focussing on the RANZCP PRG model used by Australian and New Zealand psychiatrists.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document