Comprehensive nursing peer review: Our voice, our practice, our growth.
Comprehensive nursing peer review: Our voice, our practice, our growth.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/01.numa.0000542301.90248.30
复制
发表时间：
2018-08-01
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Powers, Jan
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Murphy, Jessica;Lung, Christina;Powers, Jan
背景有效的同行评议对于保持护理实践的最高标准是必不可少的。同行评议是每个护士保持能力和促进个人和专业成长的责任。[3]尽管美国护士协会（ANA）在1988年发布了同行评议的初始指南，但在大多数机构中，完全基于证据的同行评议过程的示范仍然不明显。许多人继续使用与绩效评估挂钩的匿名反馈。4-6一项对Magnet®医院的同行评议计划的描述性研究发现，同行评议实践存在差异，只有两种一致的同行评议类型：同行评价或绩效评价以及与特定事件相关的临床实践评价。4作者还发现，机构没有衡量临床同行评议对感知，自主权和专业实践的影响，并得出结论，需要更多的研究来确定同行评议的影响。4
BackgroundEffective peer review is indispensable for holding nursing practice to the highest standards. Peer review is the responsibility of each nurse to maintain competence and contribute to personal and professional growth. 3 Although the American Nurses Association (ANA) published the initial guidelines for peer review in 1988, demonstration of a fully evidence-based peer review process still isn't evident in most institutions. Many continue to use anonymous feedback tied to performance evaluation. 4-6 One descriptive study of peer review programs in Magnet® hospitals identified variation in peer review practices, with only two consistent types of peer review: peer evaluation or performance review and evaluation of clinical practice in relation to specific events. 4 The authors also found that facilities didn't measure the impact of clinical peer review on perceptions, autonomy, and professional practice, and concluded that more research is needed to define the impact of peer review. 4