What kind of peer review data is helpful to present to the board?
Although the board is ultimately responsible for oversight of the organization, the level of data detail presented decreases as the level of authority increases. Unfortunately, physician performance data does not have the well-established metrics that are available for other data, such as financial data reporting. In this new era of quality data, the industry is still making its way through uncharted waters.
Take for example a hospital-board quality subcommittee that is still presenting a relative abundance of data with the assumption that it will help its members understand quality better. The chair wants to boil the data down to a few metrics that the board can track, following the “Less is more” principle. In order to do so, use the following principles, which can help guide development of an effective oversight report for the oversight bodies:
- Define mutually agreed-upon measures and targets: It is not uncommon to assume that the board doesn’t know much about peer review data, and your job is to decide what data they need. Having an open dialogue with the board (typically the subcommittee) about what it would like to receive is a great way to increase the likelihood that it will understand what it receives.
- Use a consistent format: If you see someone you meet in a work setting, like a hospital, and meet that person again in a recreational setting, like a soccer game, you may not recognize him or her because he or she is wearing different clothes. The same is true for data: Clothing data in different formats makes it more difficult to recognize the data’s meaning.
- Provide detail only if needed for action: Too often, detail-level data is presented on every item just in case someone asks about it. At an oversight-body level, however, detail is only needed if the oversight body is being asked to take an action other than approving the data