TABLE 1.

Reviewer qualities.

Quality/Ability	Description
Adaptability	Recognize that different approaches by an incumbent physicist may yield similar results, and may be necessitated by factors such as staffing schedules, physician practice styles, and technology. Seek to understand the process sufficiently to assess whether appropriate practice standards are applied.
Collegial dialogue	Understand the incumbent's existing processes by listening to the incumbent explain the process, repeating back to the incumbent any steps that appear ambiguous.
Confidentiality	Adhere to the confidentiality requirements of the incumbent's clinic, and do not condition the review on access to clinic documentation beyond the scope and time window of the peer review.
Constructive feedback	Suggest potential improvements in the existing process and provide relevant references to help the incumbent improve their existing processes. As stated in the AAPM Code of Ethics, 11 “The reviewer's primary professional obligation is to help the reviewed professional recognize how to improve their professional practice.”
Educational focus	Emphasize the learning aspect of the peer review process, establishing a low‐stakes “safe zone” to allow the incumbent to openly discuss areas of concern and to actively seek feedback to improve the practice.
Inquisitiveness	Be flexible in accommodating the explanations and reasoning of the incumbent, asking questions about the process followed in the clinic.
Professionalism	Recognize that practice patterns vary between clinics. Provide ample opportunity for the incumbent to explain the reason for any deviation from expected standards.
Safety	Approach any deviation from standard practice with a risk‐informed assessment.