Nurse Practitioners of Idaho Peer Review Process
Purpose:
As a membership benefit, Nurse Practitioners
of Idaho offers a mechanism whereby volunteer NP members of NPI review a
selected sample of patient records and offer an opinion on the care provided by
Nurse Practitioners.
The Peer Review Process considers the regulatory
requirements of the Idaho Board of Nursing specific to Advanced Practice
Professional Nurses and the peer review standards established by national
professional nursing organizations representing APRNs.
Program Components:
1. Mechanism for NP members of NPI to volunteer
their services as a Peer Reviewer.
2. Criteria and forms to complete for the NP who
needs to be Peer Reviewed to complete and submit to the NP Reviewer.
3. Letters of initial request to be a Peer
Reviewed and a Confidentiality Agreement to be signed by the Peer Review
provider.
4. Reporting mechanism for feedback.
5. Documentation process void of patient
identification that provides documentation that the Peer Review process was
completed.
If you are interested in participating as a reviewer for
this committee, please contact Kate Martin at martink@slhs.org.
Peer Review Program
Peer Review Tool and Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement
Nurse Practitioners of Idaho Peer Review Program Frequently Asked Questions
1. What qualifies me to be a peer reviewer for other nurse practitioners?
All NPs have a responsibility to contribute to the profession. By virtue of education and experience, each NP can contribute to the overall development of the profession by assisting peers in the review of their work. Not every NP is capable of evaluating care in every situation. Therefore, it is important to review those cases where you have current knowledge, hold certification, have practice experience to draw from and feel comfortable providing an opinion.
2. What is my liability as a peer reviewer?
Peer reviewers provide this service on a voluntary basis. The purpose is to provide a non-binding opinion about the overall quality of care provided without directing the care or entering into a provider/patient relationship.
3. Can I be compensated for the time I spend as a peer reviewer?
The peer review process provided as a membership benefit through the Nurse Practitioners of Idaho is a voluntary program that was developed to relieve the burden of meeting regulatory requirements by those nurse practitioners who are in solo or remote practices, or who might otherwise benefit from the assessment, opinion and guidance of their peers. A compensation relationship could have other unintended contractual obligations and is not the intent of the NPI program. Any peer review relationship for compensation should be entered into outside of the context of the NPI program.
4. What is the frequency necessary or how often is a peer review required?
Ongoing peer review is a valuable professional tool. In Idaho, the Board of Nursing requires that peer review be completed during each two-year licensure cycle. A representative sample of patients seen should be reviewed at regular intervals.
5. What are examples of peer review?
Each individual patient might be considered to be peer reviewed for NPs who work in hospitals and whose work is regularly reviewed by other providers or if the NP has required physician supervision because of the location of their practice.
NPs who work in group practice and conduct case conferences, or work with physicians in an office may be doing peer review on a regular basis, but documentation may be difficult to capture. To demonstrate collaboration, stating in a progress note who the case was discussed with may be helpful, but this does not fully represent a peer review. An additional mechanism and documentation separate for the patient record should exist.
6. What are the ramifications if I disagree with my peer review? This peer review is not a punitive or disciplinary process. The purpose is based on a mutual desire for quality care and professional growth of both the peer and the reviewer. The review is to focus on the appropriateness of care provided based on acceptable, common standards. Disagreement about the review findings provides an opportunity for both parties to participate in dialog about recognized standards for purposes of mutual learning and development.