Literature DB >> 2008027

A critique of the use of generic screening in quality assessment.

P J Sanazaro1, D H Mills.   

Abstract

This article summarizes available information on the efficiency and effectiveness of generic occurrence screening when used in quality assessment. Generic screening is relatively inefficient because of its multitiered review system and high rates of errors and false positives. Overall sensitivity may approach 70% to 80%, but specificity is estimated to range from about 22% to 73%. Effectiveness of generic screening in identifying problems in quality is limited by variability in peer review. Other limitations of generic screens include their lack of inherent relationship to the quality of patient care and their inability to provide direct performance measures for use in the periodic reappraisal of clinical privileges of medical staff members. We propose the monitoring of specific adverse surgical and medical clinical outcomes and related risk factors to increase efficiency in quality assessment and provide a more adequate database for the continual improvement of patient care and clinical performance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 2008027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  15 in total

1.  Adverse events in health care: issues in measurement.

Authors:  K Walshe
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2000-03

2.  [Acceptance of lot sampling: its applicability to the evaluation of the primary care services portfolio].

Authors:  J López-Picazo Ferrer
Journal:  Aten Primaria       Date:  2001-05-15       Impact factor: 1.137

3.  Clinical risk management: experiences from the United States.

Authors:  D H Mills; G E von Bolschwing
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1995-06

4.  External monitoring of quality of health care in the United States.

Authors:  N J Wareham
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1994-06

5.  Computerized surveillance of adverse drug events in hospital patients. 1991.

Authors:  D C Classen; S L Pestotnik; R S Evans; J P Burke
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2005-06

6.  Contribution of locally and externally designed quality management activities to hospitals' efforts to improve patient care.

Authors:  R L Goldman; G L Barbour; E Ciesco
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1997-02

7.  Post-Discharge Adverse Events Among Urban and Rural Patients of an Urban Community Hospital: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Dennis Tsilimingras; Jeffrey Schnipper; Ashley Duke; John Agens; Stephen Quintero; Gail Bellamy; James Janisse; Laura Helmkamp; David W Bates
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-03-31       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  A brief history of health care quality assessment and improvement in the United States.

Authors:  J M Luce; A B Bindman; P R Lee
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1994-03

9.  The cost of an established quality assurance programme: is it worth it?

Authors:  C J Eagle; J M Davies; D Pagenkopf
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 5.063

10.  Are PRO discharge screens associated with postdischarge adverse outcomes?

Authors:  F Wei; D Mark; A Hartz; C Campbell
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 3.402

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.