Education and peer review.

The success of a peer review system to assure quality of psychological services depends on its acceptance by psychologists, consumers, and 3rd-party agents. Educational efforts aimed at these 3 target groups are important in facilitating that acceptance. The present study outlines components of the educational program adopted by the developers of the American Psychological Association/CHAMPUS (Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services) peer review system. Components that, although not part of the CHAMPUS system, should be included in an ideal educational effort are also outlined. (4 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

APA/CHAMPUS peer review project: Implications for research and practice.

Describes the history of the American Psychological Association (APA) peer review of psychological services provided under the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS), the operational details of the system, and some of the criticisms of the project. Research is summarized that examined the characteristics of peer reviewers, the effects of the theoretical orientation of the reviewer, and the effects of documented treatment progress. Implications for care providers, patients, and the profession are discussed. (18 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychological and psychiatric peer review at CHAMPUS.

Considers professional reviews of psychological and psychiatric services, which have been conducted by 3rd-party payers for a number of years by various arrangements. It was not until 1979, however, that a major 3rd-party payer, the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS), developed a comprehensive operational peer review activity. This action was stirred by the need for the program to account for quality of services provided its beneficiaries and to ensure cost-beneficial care. The development of collaboration between the program and major professional organizations (American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association) is traced, as are the successes and problems encountered thus far. It is concluded that peer review should be a consistent aspect of future 3rd-party determinations. (13 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Peer review of psychodynamic psychotherapy: An experimental study of the APA/CHAMPUS program.

Investigated the factors affecting the peer review of outpatient psychological claims. 171 American Psychological Association/CHAMPUS peer reviewers of either a psychodynamic or nonpsychodynamic theoretical orientation participated in the experiment. Reviewers evaluated 1 of 6 clinical treatment reports that described the psychodynamic treatment of a depressed, middle-aged client, and the reports varied on length of previous treatment and amount of progress that was reported. Results indicate that psychodynamic reviewers were more positive in their ratings of psychodynamic treatment and more generous in their recommendations concerning reimbursement for past and future care, although reviewers' theoretical orientation had a greater effect on the evaluation of longer term treatment. Implications for mental health quality assurance programs are discussed. (6 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

History, administrative experiences, and empirical issues.

We present a summary of the history and the significance of the American Psychological Association's (APA) contract with the Civilian Health and Medical Program for the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS), which helped develop and operate a national system of quality assurance involving peer review. We elaborate on the contributions of this early APA/CHAMPUS quality assurance system, including the definition and selection of psychologists peer reviewers, case selection, documentation, prospective review, confidentiality, timeliness, and centralized management. Limitations of aspects of the system, particularly the limitations of resources for education and administration, are discussed. A number of general suggestions are offered for administrative improvement in a national system of quality assurance involving third-party payers. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Peer Review: An Overview.

In the context of professional psychology, peer review refers to an organized system of assessing quality of services and requires analysis and judgment of professional practice by other practitioners within the profession. This special issue on peer review and quality assurance represents a report on the status of developments in quality assurance within the mental health professions and emphasizes the major role of groups within the American Psychological Association (APA). The first set of articles discusses general issues in quality assessment. The next set of articles is specifically relevant to the progress and development of the Defense Department's Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) Project. The third section comprises a series of articles that describe the application of quality assurance methodology to a variety of service delivery settings. Other approaches to quality assessment and quality assurance are described in the final section. The editors hope that the articles in this special issue can assist the profession in achieving greater and more consistent effectiveness with the public it serves. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Criteria for insurance review of psychological services.

The American Psychological Association has contracted to develop a national peer review capability for the review of outpatient psychological services. The system that has been developed and the criteria that will be utilized for the purpose of selecting cases for review are described. (2 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Report of the Ethics Committee, 2001.

Reports to the membership regarding the number and types of ethical complaints that are investigated in accordance with the bylaws of the American Psychological Association. In accordance with the bylaws of the American Psychological Association (APA), the Ethics Committee reports regularly to the membership regarding the number and types of ethical complaints investigated. In addition to processing cases, in 2001 significant activities included forming and implementing changes to the adjudication process, expanding and developing educative efforts, and continuing work on the revision of the "Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychology's response to managed care.

Managed care has had a significant impact on the field of psychology. In this article, a former president of the American Psychological Association and an early career psychologist discuss how managed care has affected the practice of psychology, the training of psychologists, and the perception of psychotherapy. They also review how organized psychology has responded to managed care and provide some insights on the future of psychology as it relates to managed care. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Missing: Critical and skeptical perspectives on comprehensive soldier fitness.

The author read with interest, and concern, the January 2011 issue of the American Psychologist. The Special Issue on Comprehensive Soldier Fitness addressed a hugely consequential national issue and offered a vision for psychological resilience along with an elaborate set of supporting articles, concluding with some comments on “Objections” to psychologists working with the military. While a bold vision was offered and a game plan presented, no data or evidence are yet available (it is far too early in the process), and that should concern us all. The author hopes the American Psychological Association (APA) and the American Psychologist offer skeptical and critical views in future issues on the issue of the psychological health of our military and as evidence emerges regarding the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

When reviews attack: Ethics, free speech, and the peer review process.

The peer review process, whether formally applied in publication and grant review, or informally, such as exchange of ideas in scientific and professional newsgroups, has sparked controversy. Writers in this area agree that scholarly reviews that are inappropriate in tone are not uncommon. Indeed commentators have suggested rules and guidelines that can be used to improve the review process and to make reviewers more accountable. In this paper, the authors examine the relevance and impact of ethical codes on the conduct of peer review. They contend that the peer review process can be improved, not by a new set of rules, but through closer attention to the ethical principles to which psychologists already subscribe. The discussion considers the four principles of the Canadian Psychological Association in relation to peer review and to the six principles presented in the code of the American Psychological Association. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Author reactions to the manuscript revision process.

A survey was conducted of 483 authors with articles published in 7 American Psychological Association journals to assess Ss' reactions to the editorial review process. Results indicate that editorial feedback is shaped by both content-related and role-related factors and that de facto editorial practices differ in stringency. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

An evaluation of the Aetna pilot peer review project.

Describes a 6-mo trial peer review project in which the 3rd-party payer requested treatment reports from psychologist providers, submitted 45 selected cases to reviewers designated by the American Psychological Association, and received recommendation from these reviewers. The characteristics of the patients, the type of treatment provided, and the characteristics of the reviewers are outlined. Differences in the judged adequacy of treatment were related to factors such as the reviewer's gender and theoretical orientation, the frequency of sessions, the therapeutic orientation of the provider, and the gender of the patient. Problems related to poor documentation and the potential of peer review in improving patient care are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Association for the Advancement of Psychology: 1977.

The Association for the Advancement of Psychology (AAP) is a nonprofit corporation founded in 1974 under the auspices of the Council of Representatives of the American Psychological Association. In the interest of psychology and the public, AAP interacts with Congress, the executive branch, and the judicial branch of the federal government. AAP is governed by a 24-member Board of Trustees selected equally, by mail ballot of AAP members, from the professional, public-social, and scientific sectors of psychology. Some major public-policy activities in 1977 included confirmation hearings on the new director of the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration; Psychology-Medicare bills; the equal rights amendment; research, training, and service funding in the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Education, the National Science Foundation, the Veterans Administration, the Office of Naval Research, etc.; welfare reform; antidiscrimination amendments in employee insurance plans; President Carter's Commission on Mental Health; a complaint to the Federal Trade Commission against the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals and the American Medical Association; services and provider status in CHAMPUS, the Veterans Administration, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and the military; governmental reorganization; the "Child Health Assessment Plan"; development of national health insurance proposals; the Community Mental Health Centers Act; rights of institutionalized persons; the Health Planning Act; educational and industrial testing; evaluation of persons with access to nuclear materials; the Professional Standards Review Organizations Act; the Consumer Protection Agency; federal workers' compensation; zero-based budgeting of federally funded programs; disability determination procedures in the Social Security Administration; protection of human subjects; and copyright law revision. AAP officials and staff also worked informally on a continuous basis with individual Representatives, Senators, and their staffs, as well as with the staffs of various committees in both Houses. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Evidence-based practice in psychology.

This article focuses on the 2005 American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice in Psychology. After describing the rationale and results of this task force, the authors review the literature that has appeared following the approval of the Policy Statement on Evidence-Based Practice in Psychology by the American Psychological Association Council of Representatives, with reference to the implications for practitioners. Finally, the authors discuss the implications of the Policy Statement on Evidence-Based Practice in Psychology for graduate students and early career professionals. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Perennial ethical quandaries in military psychology: Toward American Psychological Association-Department of Defense collaboration.

Active duty military clinical psychologists occupy dual roles as therapist–clinician and commissioned military officer. Frequently, simultaneous allegiance to professional (ethical guidelines) and military (federal statutes) requirements is not possible, placing the military psychologist in ethical quandaries that lack elegant resolution and create a continuing environment of risk. This article briefly highlights two areas of acute ethical vulnerability to military psychologists and underscores the dangers inherent in current informal strategies for managing dual allegiance. It concludes with recommendations for close and ongoing collaboration between the American Psychological Association and the Department of Defense for the purpose of clarifying the role of the military psychologist and resolution of the more pressing ethical dilemmas common in military settings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Ethical Procedures: Comment.

Comments on a note from Dr. Frederick C. Thorne appearing in the March issue of American Psychologist (1956, 11, 152), entitled "Psychologists, Heal Thyselves!" Thorne's note addressed the handling by the American Psychological Association of ethics cases involving individual members. Here, the current author seeks to present the application and enforcement of the ethical code by the Association as a much less moralistic, judgmental, and punitive process than Thorne portrays it. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Procedures for identifying evidence-based psychological treatments for older adults.

The authors describe the methods used to identify evidence-based psychological treatments for older adults in this contribution to the special section. Coding teams were assembled to review the literature on several problems relevant to mental health and aging. These teams used the manual developed by the Committee on Science and Practice of the Society for Clinical Psychology (Division 12) of the American Psychological Association that provided definitions of key constructs used in coding. The authors provide an overview of the process followed by the review teams and of some of the issues that emerged to illustrate the steps involved in the coding procedure. Identifying evidence-based treatments is a fundamental aspect of promoting evidence-based practice with older adults; such practice is advocated by most health care disciplines, including psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A Contrary Opinion--and a Reassurance: Comment.

Comments on a note from Dr. Frederick C. Thorne appearing in the March issue of American Psychologist (1956, 11, 152), entitled "Psychologists, Heal Thyselves!" Thorne's note addressed the handling by the American Psychological Association of ethics cases involving individual members. Here, the current author takes exception to Thorne's characterization of the ethics review process as "moralistic, judgmental, and punitive rather than constructive, rehabilitative, and healing." The author, a member (and one-time chairman) of the Committee on Ethics of the APA (1938-40), attempts to contribute a better understanding of the services furnished by the Association's Committee on Scientific and Professional Ethics and Conduct. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Ethics, prisoner interrogation, national security, and the media.

The role of psychologists in the interrogation of prisoners and consultants to law enforcement agencies is discussed within the context of military involvement and National Security. There has been considerable discussion in the media about the role of health care professionals as interrogators and consultants. The American Psychological Association (APA) established a Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS), which examined the current APA Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct. The report concluded that psychologists may be involved in the role of supporting an interrogation but are not to be involved in any way in unethical behaviors and have a duty to report acts that involve torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading acts. Psychologists are also expected to consult when they face ethical dilemmas and must be sensitive to the problems involved in mixing inconsistent roles such as health care provision with services as consultants to interrogators. They must refrain from involving themselves in multiple relationships. Comments and criticisms of the PENS report are discussed and there is elaboration on the current state of the debate. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)