Legal Definitions - peer-review privilege

The peer-review privilege is a legal protection that shields certain communications, documents, and discussions made during a professional peer-review process from being disclosed in a lawsuit or other legal proceeding. This privilege is often applied in healthcare settings to encourage medical professionals to candidly evaluate the quality of care provided by their colleagues, without fear that their honest assessments will be used against them or the institution in a malpractice suit. The goal is to promote self-correction and improve standards of practice, ultimately benefiting patient safety and quality of service.

Here are a few examples to illustrate the peer-review privilege:

• Example 1: Hospital Quality Improvement

  Imagine a hospital's Quality Assurance Committee investigating an unexpected adverse event that occurred during a surgical procedure. The committee, composed of medical experts, reviews the surgeon's actions, the nursing staff's protocols, and the equipment used. They hold confidential meetings, interview staff members, and produce an internal report with recommendations for improving patient safety and preventing similar incidents in the future.

  If the patient later sues the hospital for malpractice, the peer-review privilege would generally prevent the plaintiff's lawyers from accessing the specific discussions, individual opinions, and the internal recommendations made by the Quality Assurance Committee. This protection allows the committee members to speak freely and critically without fear that their candid assessments will be used as evidence against the hospital or the surgeon in court, thereby fostering a culture of continuous improvement in patient care.

• Example 2: Physician Credentialing

  Consider a hospital that is evaluating a new cardiologist for admitting privileges. A credentialing committee, made up of other senior physicians, reviews the cardiologist's professional background, surgical outcomes from previous hospitals, and references. They discuss his qualifications, potential risks, and suitability for the hospital's standards in closed-door meetings before making a decision.

  Should the cardiologist later be denied privileges and sue the hospital, alleging discrimination, the peer-review privilege would typically protect the confidential deliberations and specific voting records of the credentialing committee. This ensures that committee members can provide honest, unvarnished assessments of a candidate's competence and character, which is crucial for maintaining high standards of medical practice and patient safety within the institution, without fear of legal repercussions for their candid opinions.