# Peer Review & OPPE / FPPE Abstraction > Case abstraction for hospital peer review, OPPE and FPPE — the chart reduced to the indicators the committee scores, every entry page-cited. Canonical page: https://medrecords.ai/solutions/peer-review-oppe-fppe-abstraction/ --- [Home](https://medrecords.ai/) ›[Solutions](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/) ›Peer Review & OPPE / FPPE PEER REVIEW & OPPE / FPPE ABSTRACTION ## The committee reviews the case. Someone has to build it first. Peer review abstraction services turn a flagged case into the packet a professional practice evaluation committee actually reviews: the course of care, the indicators under review, and the documentation behind each one, page-cited. The committee reads a built case instead of a raw chart, and every conclusion stays theirs. [Test a file ](https://medrecords.ai/test-a-file/?src=peer-review-oppe-fppe-abstraction) [Book a demo](https://medrecords.ai/demo/) Click any row → the source page it cites Case abstraction · Case #IME-4812 documented Adams, Timothy · peer review case file 342 pp / 2 packets received logged 11 duplicate pages removed free p.140 — wrong patient quarantined Pages 342 Documents 27 Cited 100% ### The evaluation standard is published. So is the committee that applies it. We do not build for a case type until we can name the standard that defines a correct output and the person who grades the file against it. In professional practice evaluation, both are already published. The standard and the referee The rulebook - The Joint Commission Medical Staff standards requiring ongoing professional practice evaluation (OPPE) and focused professional practice evaluation (FPPE) for every privilege granted - CMS Conditions of Participation at 42 CFR §482.22, which require the medical staff to periodically appraise its members - The hospital's own medical staff bylaws, which define the indicators, the triggers, and the review pathway - The privilege-specific criteria the practitioner is being measured against The referee - The peer review or medical executive committee, which votes on the finding and the privilege recommendation - The hospital board, which acts on the committee's recommendation - The Joint Commission surveyor and the CMS validation survey, which test whether evaluation actually happened as the bylaws describe Physician committee time spent assembling the case instead of judging it Flat 10¢/page here, duplicates free Case abstraction · Case #IME-4812 cited 100% Packet342 pp / 2 packets · 11 deduplicatedlogged Course of careOrdered, deduplicated, page-citedcited Review indicatorsEach mapped to its documentationcited Missing documentationIndicator with nothing behind itflagged Abstraction delivered · cited 100% · no practice judgment How it works ### 3 steps between the chart and the committee. 01 #### Send the case file The full chart for the case under review — orders, notes, medication administration, nursing flowsheets, device logs, imaging, in any format. 02 #### We return the abstraction, page-cited The course of care in order, with the indicators your bylaws name mapped to the documentation that supports or fails to support each one. 03 #### The committee makes the call Peers read the built case and reach the finding. We never score a practitioner, judge practice, or recommend a privilege action. The boundary, in writing ### An abstraction for the committee, never a judgment of the practitioner. We organize and cite what the chart documents against the indicators your bylaws define, and we flag indicators with no documentation behind them. We do not score a practitioner, characterize care as substandard, or recommend action on a privilege. Those are peer judgments reserved to the committee. Whether the resulting work is protected by your state's peer review privilege depends on your bylaws and how the engagement is structured. That is a question for your counsel, and it is worth settling before the first case is sent. Audit trail · Case #IME-4812 exportable 08:12Packet received · 342 pp / 2 packetssystem 08:3111 pages deduplicatedsystem 08:44p.140 flagged — wrong patientsystem 08:54Case abstraction complete · abstraction complete · indicators mapped · cited 100%system 09:20Case abstraction reviewed · citations verifiedreviewer 09:26Case abstraction exported · committee packet drafted off-platformreviewer Every access logged · file deleted 30 days after delivery Why Medrecords AI ### The rules the platform never breaks. EVERY LINE CITED CASE #IME-4812 · ADAMS, T.342 pp 2/14 — ER visit, right knee p.4 4/18 — arthroscopic surgery p.61 p.140 — wrong patient quarantined Medrecords AI Read every page · cite every line #### HIPAA, under a signed BAA Every file is handled under our Business Associate Agreement, from the first byte. #### Never trains a model Your records are never used to train any AI model — ours or anyone else's. #### Every line cited If we can't cite it, we don't say it. Every sentence links to its source page. #### Deleted after delivery Files are deleted 30 days after delivery, with a full audit log of every access. Powered by the platform ### 4 capabilities behind every case abstraction. The case abstraction is 1 deliverable of the same platform that reads, sorts, and cites the whole record. [ #### Medical Records OCR Every page of the case file read in full — orders, flowsheets, device downloads, handwritten notes — nothing skipped, nothing guessed. IN ACTION · 342 pp / 2 packets → 27 documents, read in full ](https://medrecords.ai/product/ocr/) [ #### Medical Chronology The course of care builds itself into a single timeline, so the sequence the committee is judging is visible at a glance. IN ACTION · admission → outcome, 1 continuous timeline ](https://medrecords.ai/product/chronology/) [ #### Verifiable AI Citations If we can't cite it, we don't say it. Every indicator in the abstraction links to the page that documents it. IN ACTION · every indicator → cited 100% ](https://medrecords.ai/product/citations/) [ #### Medical Summary Reports The abstraction formats straight into the committee packet — your template, your letterhead. IN ACTION · case abstraction → committee-ready packet ](https://medrecords.ai/product/summaries/) FAQ ### Peer review abstraction, answered. No. We map each indicator your bylaws name to the documentation behind it and flag indicators with nothing behind them. Scoring practice, judging whether care met the standard, and recommending privilege action are peer judgments the committee makes. Privilege depends on your state statute, your medical staff bylaws, and how the engagement is structured. We can work under a structure your counsel defines, but we don't advise on whether privilege attaches. Settle that question with counsel before the first case is sent. Yes. FPPE and OPPE differ in trigger and duration, not in what the abstraction does: reduce each case to the indicators being evaluated, with the documentation cited. The indicator set comes from your bylaws and privilege criteria. No. Medrecords AI does not retrieve records from providers or facilities. You bring the records you already have — review starts in minutes from upload. Retrieval vendors take days; you can keep yours and still cut the review to minutes. ### Send 1 file. We'll tell you what we can read. No obligation. If the case type is buildable we'll scope it; if it isn't, we'll say so. [Test a file ](https://medrecords.ai/test-a-file/?src=peer-review-oppe-fppe-abstraction) [Book a demo](https://medrecords.ai/demo/) [See every case type we process →](https://medrecords.ai/solutions/case-types/)