The Peer Reviewer With a Conflict
A hospital's peer review committee is reviewing a case in which a 45-year-old patient died following a delayed diagnosis of an aortic dissection. The case was assigned to Dr. R, a cardiothoracic surgeon. Before the review, Dr. R mentions to the committee chair that he and the treating emergency physician, Dr. M, are partners in a private surgical center and that Dr. M referred two patients to Dr. R last month. Dr. R says, 'I can be objective - I've known him for years.' The committee chair is unsure whether to reassign. Separately, the patient's family has requested the peer review file under state open-records law.
1. Should Dr. R be permitted to review this case? Analyze the conflict and the committee's obligation.
Read the worked answer
No - Dr. R should be reassigned. The appearance of a conflict is enough, even if Dr. R believes he can be objective.
The conflict:
- Financial relationship. Co-ownership of a surgical center with the physician under review is a direct financial tie.
- Referral relationship. Dr. M referred two patients to Dr. R last month. A negative peer review finding could damage that referral stream - creating a direct incentive to go easy.
- Social relationship. 'Known him for years' compounds the bias risk.
The standard: Peer review requires an independent reviewer. The test is not whether Dr. R feels objective; it is whether a reasonable observer would question the fairness. Here, a reasonable observer clearly would.
The committee's obligation:
- Reassign the case to a reviewer with no financial, referral, or close social relationship to Dr. M.
- Document the conflict and the reassignment in the committee minutes - this protects the integrity of the process.
- Apply the same conflict screen to all reviewers going forward; a standing conflict-of-interest attestation at the start of each review is good practice.
- Do not let Dr. R participate in discussion of the case, not just the vote - his presence in the room can influence others.
Note: Reassigning does not imply Dr. R is dishonest. It protects both the process and Dr. R.
2. The family requests the peer review file. What should the committee do, and how does peer review protection interact with the request?
Read the worked answer
The committee should not release the file unilaterally, but it also should not assume blanket protection.
Peer review protection is not absolute. Most states provide peer review privilege and confidentiality, but the scope varies widely. Some states have open-records or patient-access statutes that can reach peer review materials; some carve out exceptions (e.g., when the patient's own care is at issue, or in litigation).
What the committee should do:
- Do not destroy or alter anything. Spoliation destroys the protection and creates liability.
- Route the request to legal counsel immediately. The committee is not the decision-maker on disclosure.
- Determine the applicable state law - peer review statute, open-records law, and any patient-access provisions. Counsel should confirm whether the file is protected.
- Separate the file. Peer review deliberative materials (committee discussion, opinions, votes) are generally more protected than the underlying medical record. The medical record itself is separately discoverable and should be handled through normal channels.
- Respond in writing to the family, through counsel, explaining the basis for withholding or producing.
Key point: The family's request does not automatically override peer review protection, but the committee cannot simply refuse without a legal basis. The correct move is to pause, involve counsel, and let the legal analysis drive the response - while preserving the file intact.