Warning: Undefined array key "mm" in /www/wwwroot/www.ai-bt.com/si.php on line 10 Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /www/wwwroot/www.ai-bt.com/si.php on line 10 Poor documentation prevents adequate assessment of quality metrics in colorectal cancer.

Literature DB >> 20856630

Poor documentation prevents adequate assessment of quality metrics in colorectal cancer.

Amy P Abernethy¹, James E Herndon, Jane L Wheeler, Krista Rowe, Jennifer Marcello, Meenal Patwardhan.

Abstract

To standardize oncology clinical practice and improve patient outcomes, multiple organizations have developed cancer-specific metrics on the basis of a systematic background review, expert guidance, and fundamental elements of cancer care-staging and treatment.

Entities: Disease Species

Year: 2009 PMID： 20856630 PMCID： PMC2795422 DOI： 10.1200/JOP.0942003

Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Oncol Pract ISSN： 1554-7477 Impact factor: 3.840

8 in total

1. The clinical record in medicine. Part 2: Reforming content and purpose.

Authors: S J Reiser
Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1991-06-01 Impact factor: 25.391

2. Reassessing the methods of medical record review studies in emergency medicine research.

Authors: Andrew Worster; R Daniel Bledsoe; Paul Cleve; Christopher M Fernandes; Suneel Upadhye; Kevin Eva
Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.721

3. How well does chart abstraction measure quality? A prospective comparison of standardized patients with the medical record.

Authors: J Luck; J W Peabody; T R Dresselhaus; M Lee; P Glassman
Journal: Am J Med Date: 2000-06-01 Impact factor: 4.965

Review 4. Prognostic factors in colorectal cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999.

Authors: C C Compton; L P Fielding; L J Burgart; B Conley; H S Cooper; S R Hamilton; M E Hammond; D E Henson; R V Hutter; R B Nagle; M L Nielsen; D J Sargent; C R Taylor; M Welton; C Willett
Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 5.534

Poor documentation prevents adequate assessment of quality metrics in colorectal cancer.

1. The clinical record in medicine. Part 2: Reforming content and purpose.

2. Reassessing the methods of medical record review studies in emergency medicine research.

3. How well does chart abstraction measure quality? A prospective comparison of standardized patients with the medical record.

Review 4. Prognostic factors in colorectal cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999.

5. Opportunities for improving management of advanced chronic kidney disease.

6. Traditional medical records as a source of clinical data in the outpatient setting.

7. Chart reviews in emergency medicine research: Where are the methods?

8. Advanced chronic kidney disease practice patterns among nephrologists and non-nephrologists: a database analysis.

1. The truth, the whole truth, and the medical record.

Review 2. The value of data collection within a palliative care program.

3. Audit and feedback intervention: An examination of differences in chiropractic record-keeping compliance.

4. How Does Managed Care Improve the Quality of Breast Cancer Care Among Medicare-Insured Minority Women?

5. TNM-O: ontology support for staging of malignant tumours.

6. Colorectal Cancer in Uganda: A 10-Year, Facility-Based, Retrospective Study.

7. Improving Quality and Value of Cancer Care for Older Adults.

8. Influence of data quality on computed Dutch hospital quality indicators: a case study in colorectal cancer surgery.