Peer Review Form for Educational Content

| Resume a previously saved form
Resume Later

In order to be able to resume this form later, please enter your email and choose a password.

Password must contain the following:
  • 12 Characters
  • 1 Uppercase letter
  • 1 Lowercase letter
  • 1 Number
  • 1 Special character
UF COP CPE Logo

Peer review is an essential component of ensuring accredited continuing education programs achieve certain expectations.   

 

Use the bulleted best practices as a guide when reviewing clinical content to ensure the development of a fair and balanced educational program that supports safe and effective patient care:

  • Clinical content focused on patient care must be based on current science, the most recent therapeutic guidelines, evidence, and clinical reasoning, while giving a fair and balanced view of diagnostic and therapeutic options. 
  • Scientific research referred to, reported, or used in the educational program, related to patient care, must conform to the generally accepted standards of experimental design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation
  • Program material may not be included if it includes the following:
    • unscientific approaches to diagnosis or therapy,
    • education promotes recommendations, treatment, or manners of practicing healthcare that are determined to have risks or dangers that outweigh the benefits, or are known to be ineffective in the treatment of patients. 

Continuing education programs are an appropriate place to discuss, debate, and explore new and evolving topics, however, all clinical content must be evidence-based should include the following strategies: 

  • Facilitate engagement without advocating for, or promoting, practices that are not, or not yet, adequately based on current science, evidence, and clinical reasoning.  
  • Construct the activity as a debate or dialogue.
  • Identify other faculty who represent a range of opinions and perspectives; presentations should include a balanced, objective view of research and treatment options.  
  • Teach about the merits and limitations of a therapeutic or diagnostic approach rather than how to use it.  
  • Identify content that has not been accepted as scientifically meritorious by regulatory and other authorities, or when the material has not been included in scientifically accepted guidelines or published in journals with national or international stature.  
  • Clearly communicate the learning goals for the activity to learners (e.g., “This activity will teach you about how your patients may be using XX therapy and how to answer their questions. It will not teach you how to administer XX therapy”).
Reviewer Information

If you would like your name to be listed, please reach out to cesupport@ahc.ufl.edu.



Initial Accreditation Content


Reaccreditation Content



Please complete each review item below, providing additional details using the notes and/or attachments section(s) when necessary.

Item No. 1


Item No. 2


Item No. 3


Item No. 4


Item No. 5


Item No. 6


Item No. 7


Item No. 8


Item No. 9
All lecture content is current and refers to foundational knowledge, therapy, and practice approaches that are supported by the following: 
  • Current guidelines
  • Laws/practice standards
  • Current literature
If majority of content is current but there are small sections that need updated please mark no and indicate which section(s) should be updated.


Item No. 10
All imagery and websites are accurate and current with respect to the following:
  • Current guidelines
  • Laws/practice standards
  • Current literature
Imagery includes but not limited to the following: diagrams, screen grabs, tables, graphics, etc. 


Item No. 11


Item No. 12


Item No. 13

Note: When it is anticipated that content has the potential to be “re-usable,” it is recommended that instructors record these presentations in a studio setting so they are of high quality.

Item No. 14

If no, please include a detailed analysis of assessment questions that should be updated and why.

Item No. 15

If no, please include a detailed analysis of case scenarios that should be updated and why.

Item No. 16

If no, please include a detailed analysis of readings that should be updated and why.

Item No. 17

(If content is from an external source, documentation has already been provided to the Ed Tech team noting that COP has permission to provide it to students digitally.)

Item No. 18 (Reaccreditation)

If “yes” is selected please indicate a timeframe for when it will need to be reviewed again. 

By selecting “no” it is your recommendation that the educational item is no longer accurate and should be removed from the educational program.

This educational content can be repurposed as is ONLY IF the items listed in the notes are edited or updated.

Item No. 18 (Initial accreditation)

If “yes” is selected please indicate a timeframe for when it will need to be reviewed again. 

By selecting “no” it is your recommendation that the educational item does not meet accreditation standards and should be revised.

This educational content can be approved for accreditation ONLY IF the items listed in the notes are edited or updated.

Optional Supporting Documentation
Please use this section to upload any supporting documentation. 


A file upload may be used as additional supporting evidence.

Please enter your full name.
Save my progress and resume later | Resume a previously saved form

Contact Information