-Partners in Practice -

Peer review is not a new idea. In one form or another, it has been an integral part of professional life from the earliest days of the professions. But the formalization of peer review among architects and engineers is a relatively recent development. What began as a modest, pilot program mounted by the Association of Soil and Foundation Engineers (ASFE) in 1977, has emerged as a multidisciplinary undertaking on the crest of a rising tide of support from all segments of the design community.

The impetus for action had its origin in the liability crisis that nearly overwhelmed geotechnical engineers in the early 1970s. But peer review is and always has been something much more than a response to liability concerns. It is grounded in the realization that the modern-day ability to perform professional services of high quality is inseparable from the ability to control the external forces which influence the delivery of those services.

It was this realization, combined with clear evidence of the success of the ASFE program, that led the American Consulting Engineers Council (ACEC) in 1984 to implement a peer review program of its own. Today, with the endorsements of the AIA, ASCE, PEPP, the California Council of Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors, and the two major professional liability insurers in the U.S., ACEC's adaptation of the ASFE peer review initiative has evolved into a program of major importance to architects and engineers throughout the country.

Peer review has a lofty objective. It is to improve the quality of professional services by strengthening the management of professional practice. It is no coincidence that the pursuit of this objective has a direct bearing on the control of professional liability losses; virtually every aspect of practice management has liability implications. Along with its other significant benefits, peer review can help you reduce your exposure to claims.

If you were considering whether or not to participate in peer review, what questions would you have? Confidentiality is a major concern and a valid one. So, too, are concerns about the qualifications of those who would serve as reviewers, doubts about the adaptability of a generic process to the unique conditions of your practice, and uncertainties about the costs and benefits of the peer review program.

Of these concerns, confidentiality tends to be of overriding importance. The program recognizes this. Each firm seeking to be peer reviewed is given a list of qualified reviewers from which to select a short-list of candidates. The list is compiled using criteria specified by the firm itself ("No one from my state," for example).

Reviewers are assigned from the short-list based on availability, and before the review process is set in motion a nondisclosure agreement must be executed by each of them. In addition, all materials provided to the review team must be returned upon completion of the review, the team's findings are presented in a verbal report to principals, and all notes assembled during the review process are destroyed.

The issue of confidentiality goes hand in hand with the question of qualifications. The effectiveness of peer review depends heavily on mutual respect and trust between those being reviewed and those doing the reviewing. Peer reviewers must have at least five years' experience as principals in their own firms and fifteen years' experience in the profession. They must also have attended an ACEC peer review training session. Review teams are led by an experienced reviewer.

Peer review, by definition, is tailored to the unique activities and environment of the reviewed firm. The process is one in which stated policies and procedures are compared with actual practices. The intent is to determine, through on-site interviews, the extent to which those policies and procedures are being followed in key areas- general management, finance, human resources, project management, and business development. Peer review does not attempt, nor is it intended to evaluate technical competence or design quality.

The cost of peer review is modest. The reviewed firm pays travel, meal and lodging expenses incurred by the reviewers, plus an honorarium of $250 per reviewer per day and an ACEC management fee of $250 plus $50 per reviewer per day. The management fee for ACEC member firms is somewhat less. For most firms, on-site review involves one to two days and two reviewers.

If feedback on the program to date is any measure of its early success, peer review is a clear winner. It can be an extraordinarily positive experience-for reviewers and reviewed firms alike. Consider these benefits:

1. Objective, empathetic counsel from others with experience in dealing with the same problems you face and in assessing those problems in firms similar to your own. Peer review can provide insights on your management methods and style, and it affords an important opportunity to concentrate on management issues that can otherwise too easily be deferred.
2. Reduced exposure to claims and potential savings on professional liability insurance costs. The new CNA application asks, for the benefit of the underwriters, whether or not your firm has been peer reviewed, and DPIC offers a one-time premium credit to those firms which have been.
3. A strengthened practice with improved internal communications and a more motivated staff. Interviews conducted during the on-site review tend to communicate a heightened level of management concern with staff perceptions and attitudes. They open an unexpected channel of communications, and they tend to reinforce a sense of your commitment to consider opportunities for positive change.

Peer review is something you might want to look into, and we would urge you to do so. You can find out more about the program by requesting a copy of the Peer Review Program Manual from the Program Administrator at ACEC, 1015 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 347-7474. Or you can sign up for the next peer review training session.

The course content is well worth a day of your time. It not only includes an explanation of the peer review process, but it contains a valuable segment on communications which has universal applicability. It also offers revealing insights on common findings compiled by experienced reviewers.

If we sound enthusiastic about peer review, we are. We believe it to be one of the more valuable resources for strengthening management practices and reducing professional liability claims to be developed in many years. If you are not already convinced, find a colleague whose firm has been reviewed, and ask about it. You may be surprised by the accolades it receives.

For inquiries or problems please contact us via e-mail at Earleen Thomas or call us directly at 800-705-7742.
© 2000 Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Professional Practice Insurance Brokers, Inc. All Rights Reserved. California License #0641361.