MEDICAL PRACTITIONER PEER REVIEW SYSTEM AND METHOD

• US 20100131282A1
• Filed: 11/21/2008
• Published: 05/27/2010
• Est. Priority Date: 11/21/2008
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Allmed Healthcare Management, Inc.
• Original Assignee: Allmed Healthcare Management, Inc.
• Inventors: Rowe, Andrew G., Freedman, Samuel P.
• Granted Patent: US 8,706,517 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 705/2
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06 Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06398 Performance of employee with respect to a job function
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/10 Office automation; Time management
• CPC Class Codes: G16H 15/00 ICT specially adapted for medical reports, e.g. generation or transmission thereof
• CPC Class Codes: G16H 40/20 for the management or administration of healthcare resources or facilities, e.g. managing hospital staff or surgery rooms

Abstract

Systems and methods for evaluating the performance of at least one medical practitioner are provided. In one example, the method includes generating a specialty specific review form based on medical data collected from the client. The example method may further include selecting a peer review board based on the specialty of the at least one medical practitioner under review. Following selection of the peer review board, the method includes subsequently transferring the specialty specific review form to the peer review board. The method may further include receiving a peer analysis of the at least one medical practitioner from the peer review board where the peer analysis may include a completed specialty specific review form. A standardized report may be generated evaluating a level of performance of the at least one medical practitioner based upon data included in the peer analysis.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the performance of at least one medical practitioner associated with a client, the method comprising:

generating a specialty specific review form based on medical data collected from the client;

selecting a peer review board based on the specialty of the at least one medical practitioner under review;

subsequently transferring the specialty specific review form to the peer review board;

receiving a peer analysis of the at least one medical practitioner from the peer review board, the peer analysis including a completed specialty specific review form; and

generating a standardized report evaluating a level of performance of at least one medical practitioner based upon data included in the peer analysis.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the medical data is collected from the client pro-actively, according to a scheduling algorithm.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the specialty specific peer review form includes a review form tailored to specific procedure and/or treatments commonly carried out in a medical specialty, and where a plurality of specialty specific review forms are generated including a first form including a first set of fields tailored to a first specialty, and a second form including a second set of fields at least some of which are different from the first set of fields, fields, the second set of fields tailored to a second specialty different from the first specialty, and where the tailored fields are based on the specialty for which the form is generated.

4. The method of claim 1, further comprising transferring the specialty specific review form via a web-based network.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein the standardized report comprises a graphical depiction of the level of performance of the at least one medical practitioner.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein the graphical depiction is color-coded according to the level of performance of the medical practitioners.

7. The method of claim 1, further comprising storing the standardized report in a medical information database.

8. The method of claim 1, wherein the standardized report is generated based on aggregated data from a medical information database, benchmarking the medical practitioner'"'"'s level of performance.

9. The method of claim 1 further comprising generating a comprehensive reporting package comprising aggregate reports benchmarking the performance of a medical facility associated with the client.

10. An evaluation manager for a client, the evaluation manager comprising:

a communications engine adapted to facilitate communication between the client, the evaluation manager, and a peer review board;

a selection engine adapted to select the peer review board including one or more medical practitioners;

a content management engine adapted to selectively gather medical data from the client, generate a specialty specific review form, and send the specialty specific review form to the peer review board; and

a report engine adapted to receive a completed specialty specific standardized review form from the peer review board as well as aggregate data from a medical information database, the report engine further adapted to generate a comprehensive reporting package including a plurality of reports evaluating a level of performance of two or more medical practitioners associated with the client.

11. The evaluation manager of claim 10, wherein the client is a health care organization and the selected medical practitioners are external to the health care organization.

12. The evaluation manager of claim 10, wherein the selectively gathered medical data corresponds to the specialty of the medical practitioner and the selectively gathered medical data is pro-actively gathered in response to a request from the client.

13. The evaluation manager of claim 10, wherein the communications engine is web-based and the comprehensive reporting package benchmarks the medical practitioner'"'"'s level of performance against other medical practitioner'"'"'s level of performance.

14. The evaluation manager of claim 13, wherein the comprehensive reporting package is dynamically modified by the client according to parameters including one or more of the specialty of the medical practitioner under review and the treatments and/or procedures performed by the medical practitioner under review.

15. The evaluation manager of claim 10, wherein the medical evaluation database can be sorted by the evaluation manager according to one or more of a specialty, a hospital, a hospital group, a procedure, and a treatment.

16. A system for generating a standardized evaluation of at least one medical practitioner based on a peer analysis, the system comprising:

a web-based communications engine communicatively linking a client, an evaluation manager, and a peer review board;

a selection engine selecting a peer review board based on a specialty of the at least one medical practitioner;

a content management engine adapted to selectively gather medical data from the client, generate a specialty specific review form, and transfer the specialty specific review form to the peer review board where the specialty specific review form is completed as part of a peer analysis; and

a report engine adapted to generate a standardized evaluation of the at least one medical practitioner based on the peer analysis generated by the peer review board.

17. The system of claim 16, wherein the standardized evaluation includes a plurality of graphical depictions corresponding to the specialty of the at least one medical practitioner.

18. The system of claim 16, wherein the report engine is adapted to generate a comprehensive reporting package evaluating a level of performance of two or more medical practitioners.

19. The system of claim 16, wherein the standardized evaluation is further based on data from a medical information database.

20. The system of claim 16, wherein the content management engine includes a culling system adapted to filter extraneous information from the medical data and form one or more data sets.