Literature DB >> 12036004

Discrepancies between explicit and implicit review: physician and nurse assessments of complications and quality.

Saul N Weingart1, Roger B Davis, R Heather Palmer, Michael Cahalane, Mary Beth Hamel, Kenneth Mukamal, Russell S Phillips, Donald T Davies, Lisa I Iezzoni.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify and characterize discrepancies between explicit and implicit medical record review of complications and quality of care.
SETTING: Forty-two acute-care hospitals in California and Connecticut in 1994. STUDY
DESIGN: In a retrospective chart review of 1,025 Medicare beneficiaries age >65, we compared explicit (nurse) and implicit (physician) reviews of complications and quality in individual cases. To understand discrepancies, we calculated the kappa statistic and examined physicians' comments. DATA COLLECTION: With Medicare discharge abstracts, we used the Complications Screening Program to identify and then select a stratified random sample of cases flagged for 1 of 15 surgical complications, 5 medical complications, and unflagged controls. Peer Review Organization nurses and physicians performed chart reviews. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: Agreement about complications was fair (kappa = 0.36) among surgical and was moderate (kappa = 0.59) among medical cases. In discordant cases, physicians said that complications were insignificant, attributable to a related diagnosis, or present on admission. Agreement about quality was poor among surgical and medical cases (kappa = 0.00 and 0.13, respectively). In discordant cases, physicians said that quality problems were unavoidable, small lapses in otherwise satisfactory care, present on admission, or resulted in no adverse outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: We identified many discrepancies between explicit and implicit review of complications and quality. Physician reviewers may not consider process problems that are ubiquitous in hospitals to represent substandard quality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12036004      PMCID: PMC1430369          DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  21 in total

Review 1.  In-hospital complication occurrence as a screen for quality-of-care problems: what's next?

Authors:  J M Geraci
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Changes in quality of care for five diseases measured by implicit review, 1981 to 1986.

Authors:  L V Rubenstein; K L Kahn; E J Reinisch; M J Sherwood; W H Rogers; C Kamberg; D Draper; R H Brook
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1990-10-17       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 3.  The reliability of peer assessments of quality of care.

Authors:  R L Goldman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1992-02-19       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Quality-of-care assessment: choosing a method for peer review.

Authors:  R H Brook; F A Appel
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1973-06-21       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Peer review in ambulatory care: use of explicit criteria and implicit judgments.

Authors:  B S Hulka; F J Romm; G R Parkerson; I T Russell; N E Clapp; F S Johnson
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1979-03       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Peer review of medical care.

Authors:  F M Richardson
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1972 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  An empirical assessment of the validity of explicit and implicit process-of-care criteria for quality assessment.

Authors:  C M Ashton; D H Kuykendall; M L Johnson; N P Wray
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  Use of administrative data to find substandard care: validation of the complications screening program.

Authors:  S N Weingart; L I Iezzoni; R B Davis; R H Palmer; M Cahalane; M B Hamel; K Mukamal; R S Phillips; D T Davies; N J Banks
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Measuring clinical performance of individual internists in office and hospital practice.

Authors:  P J Sanazaro; R M Worth
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1985-09       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Peer review organizations. Promises and potential pitfalls.

Authors:  P E Dans; J P Weiner; S E Otter
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1985-10-31       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  15 in total

1.  The role of perspective.

Authors:  Harold S Luft
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 2.  The evolving science of quality measurement for hospitals: implications for studies of competition and consolidation.

Authors:  Patrick S Romano; Ryan Mutter
Journal:  Int J Health Care Finance Econ       Date:  2004-06

3.  Voluntary electronic reporting of medical errors and adverse events. An analysis of 92,547 reports from 26 acute care hospitals.

Authors:  Catherine E Milch; Deeb N Salem; Stephen G Pauker; Thomas G Lundquist; Sanjaya Kumar; Jack Chen
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-12-22       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Symptom-Disease Pair Analysis of Diagnostic Error (SPADE): a conceptual framework and methodological approach for unearthing misdiagnosis-related harms using big data.

Authors:  Ava L Liberman; David E Newman-Toker
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2018-01-22       Impact factor: 7.035

5.  Removing anonymity protection and utilization review decisions: a real-world case under a single-payer health system.

Authors:  Chih-Kuang Wang; Shih-Jung Chien; Po-Chang Lee; Shou-Hsia Cheng
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-07-16       Impact factor: 4.996

6.  Comparison of three methods for estimating rates of adverse events and rates of preventable adverse events in acute care hospitals.

Authors:  Philippe Michel; Jean Luc Quenon; Anne Marie de Sarasqueta; Olivier Scemama
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-01-24

7.  The quality of medication use in older adults: methods of a longitudinal study.

Authors:  Mary T Roth; Charity G Moore; Jena L Ivey; Denise A Esserman; William H Campbell; Morris Weinberger
Journal:  Am J Geriatr Pharmacother       Date:  2008-10

8.  Identifying potentially preventable complications using a present on admission indicator.

Authors:  John S Hughes; Richard F Averill; Norbert I Goldfield; James C Gay; John Muldoon; Elizabeth McCullough; Jean Xiang
Journal:  Health Care Financ Rev       Date:  2006

Review 9.  Measurement of patient safety: a systematic review of the reliability and validity of adverse event detection with record review.

Authors:  Mirelle Hanskamp-Sebregts; Marieke Zegers; Charles Vincent; Petra J van Gurp; Henrica C W de Vet; Hub Wollersheim
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-08-22       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Patient safety: Needs and initiatives.

Authors:  Julian Bion
Journal:  Indian J Crit Care Med       Date:  2008-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.