The recent decision of a state supreme court upholds a state law requiring the confidentiality of peer review, a process intended to keep patients from harm and ensure continued quality improvement in the care provided.
In Allred v. Saunders, the Utah Supreme Court weighed in on an earlier court ruling that required a physician’s peer review files to be produced as evidence in determining medical liability, contrary to a law passed in 2012 that explicitly protects that information in order to preserve the integrity of peer review proceedings.
“Peer and care review panels, as well as committees that evaluate physicians’ credentials, work only because participants are assured that anything they say will be kept confidential,” an amicus brief filed by the Litigation Center of the AMA and State Medical Societies and the Utah Medical Association states.
“The goal of these review meetings has always been to improve patient care and to improve quality care processes,” the brief states. “These reviews reduce the chance that adverse outcomes will recur, and help all to learn from challenges that others have experienced.”
Read more about this case and other recent cases regarding peer review.
