Medical audit of hospital records has been a major component of quality of care assessment, although physician judgment is known to have low reliability. We estimated interrater agreement of quality assessment in a sample of patients with cardiac conditions admitted to an American teaching hospital. Physician-reviewers used structured review methods designed to improve quality assessment based on judgment. Chance-corrected agreement for the items considered more relevant to process and outcome of care ranged from low to moderate (0.2 to 0.6), depending on the review item and the principal diagnoses and procedures the patients underwent. Results from several studies seem to converge on this point. Comparisons among different settings should be made with caution, given the sensitivity of agreement measurements to prevalence rates. Reliability of review methods in their current stage could be improved by combining the assessment of two or more reviewers, and by emphasizing outcome-oriented events.