Aveling et al Reciprocal peer review_v2s 20_06_26.pdf (602.25 kB)
Download file

Reciprocal peer review for quality improvement: an ethnographic case study of the Improving Lung Cancer Outcomes Project.

Download (602.25 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 24.10.2012, 08:56 by Emma-Louise Aveling, Graham Martin, Senai Jiménez García, Lisa Martin, Georgia Herbert, Natalie Armstrong, Mary Dixon-Woods, Ian Woolhouse
BACKGROUND: Peer review offers a promising way of promoting improvement in health systems, but the optimal model is not yet clear. We aimed to describe a specific peer review model-reciprocal peer-to-peer review (RP2PR)-to identify the features that appeared to support optimal functioning. METHODS: We conducted an ethnographic study involving observations, interviews and documentary analysis of the Improving Lung Cancer Outcomes Project, which involved 30 paired multidisciplinary lung cancer teams participating in facilitated reciprocal site visits. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Fundamental features of the model include multidisciplinary participation, a focus on discussion and observation of teams in action, rather than paperwork; facilitated reflection and discussion on data and observations; support to develop focused improvement plans. Five key features were identified as important in optimising this model: peers and pairing methods; minimising logistic burden; structure of visits; independent facilitation; and credibility of the process. Facilitated RP2PR was generally a positive experience for participants, but implementing improvement plans was challenging and required substantial support. RP2PR appears to be optimised when it is well organised; a safe environment for learning is created; credibility is maximised; implementation and impact are supported. DISCUSSION: RP2PR is seen as credible and legitimate by lung cancer teams and can act as a powerful stimulus to produce focused quality improvement plans and to support implementation. Our findings have identified how RP2PR functioned and may be optimised to provide a constructive, open space for identifying opportunities for improvement and solutions.



BMJ Quality and Safety, 2012, 21 (12), pp. 1034-1041.


AM (Accepted Manuscript)

Published in

BMJ Quality and Safety


BMJ Publishing Group





Copyright date


Available date


Publisher version




Usage metrics