Literature DB >> 12463775

A framework for evidence-adaptive quality assessment that unifies guideline-based and performance-indicator approaches.

Aneel Advani1, Mary Goldstein, Mark A Musen.   

Abstract

Automated quality assessment of clinician actions and patient outcomes is a central problem in guideline- or standards-based medical care. In this paper we describe a unified model representation and algorithm for evidence-adaptive quality assessment scoring that can: (1) use both complex case-specific guidelines and single-step population-wide performance-indicators as quality measures; (2) score adherence consistently with quantitative population-based medical utilities of the quality measures where available; and (3) give worst-case and best-case scores for variations based on (a) uncertain knowledge of the best practice, (b) guideline customization to an individual patient or particular population, (c) physician practice style variation, or (d) imperfect reliability of the quality measure. Our solution uses fuzzy measure-theoretic scoring to handle the uncertain knowledge about best-practices and the ambiguity from practice variation. We show results of applying our method to retrospective data from a guideline project to improve the quality of hypertension care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12463775      PMCID: PMC2244239     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc AMIA Symp        ISSN: 1531-605X


  9 in total

1.  Clinical decision support systems for the practice of evidence-based medicine.

Authors:  I Sim; P Gorman; R A Greenes; R B Haynes; B Kaplan; H Lehmann; P C Tang
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2001 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  Are clinical practice guidelines valid for primary care?

Authors:  R P Graham; P A James; T M Cowan
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Are guidelines following guidelines? The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer-reviewed medical literature.

Authors:  T M Shaneyfelt; M F Mayo-Smith; J Rothwangl
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-05-26       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  EON: a component-based approach to automation of protocol-directed therapy.

Authors:  M A Musen; S W Tu; A K Das; Y Shahar
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  1996 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.497

5.  The Asgaard project: a task-specific framework for the application and critiquing of time-oriented clinical guidelines.

Authors:  Y Shahar; S Miksch; P Johnson
Journal:  Artif Intell Med       Date:  1998 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.326

6.  Performance measurement: problems and solutions.

Authors:  D M Eddy
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  1998 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 6.301

7.  Developing a clinical performance measure.

Authors:  E A McGlynn; S M Asch
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 5.043

8.  Goal-directed critiquing by computer: ventilator management.

Authors:  P L Miller
Journal:  Comput Biomed Res       Date:  1985-10

9.  The unreliability of individual physician "report cards" for assessing the costs and quality of care of a chronic disease.

Authors:  T P Hofer; R A Hayward; S Greenfield; E H Wagner; S H Kaplan; W G Manning
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-06-09       Impact factor: 56.272

  9 in total
  2 in total

1.  Developing quality indicators and auditing protocols from formal guideline models: knowledge representation and transformations.

Authors:  Aneel Advani; Mary Goldstein; Yuval Shahar; Mark A Musen
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2003

2.  Development of explicit criteria to measure adherence to hypertension guidelines.

Authors:  J L Milchak; B L Carter; G Ardery; H R Black; G L Bakris; D W Jones; C D Kreiter
Journal:  J Hum Hypertens       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.012

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.