Literature DB >> 2299897

Reliability and validity of utilization review criteria. Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol, Standardized Medreview Instrument, and Intensity-Severity-Discharge criteria.

I Strumwasser1, N V Paranjpe, D L Ronis, D Share, L J Sell.   

Abstract

A study was conducted to assess the reliability and validity of the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol (AEP), the Standardized Medreview Instrument (SMI) and the Intensity-Severity-Discharge criteria set (ISD), three utilization review instruments used to determine whether inpatient care is required. Reliability and validity were assessed for retrospective application of these instruments to charts of a sample of 119 medical cases from 21 hospitals in the state of Michigan. The reliability of each instrument was determined by having the instrument applied by two different nurse reviewers to each hospital record. Results indicated that the AEP and ISD were moderately reliable, while the SMI had low reliability. The validity of each instrument was tested by comparing the judgments of nurse reviewers using the instruments with the judgment of a panel of physicians. The AEP and ISD were found to be moderately valid and the SMI was found to have low validity. Results suggested that the SMI should not be used. The modest level of validity of the other two instruments suggests that payment should never be denied on the basis of the instrument alone. Payment should be denied only if a physician confirms the judgment based on the instrument that inpatient care was not required.

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2299897     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199002000-00001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  27 in total

1.  Validity of utilization review tools.

Authors:  P Dodek; B Trerise; C B Warriner
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2000-11-14       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  How valid are utilization review tools in assessing appropriate use of acute care beds?

Authors:  N Kalant; M Berlinguet; J G Diodati; L Dragatakis; F Marcotte
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2000-06-27       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Inappropriately delayed discharge from hospital: what do we know?

Authors:  Norman Vetter
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-04-26

4.  Review of the utilisation of a university hospital in Barcelona (Spain): evolution 1992-1996.

Authors:  G Navarro; A Prat-Marin; M Asenjo; A Menacho; A Trilla; L Salleras
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 8.082

5.  Integration of a stand-alone expert system with a hospital information system.

Authors:  J W Hales; R M Gardner; S M Huff
Journal:  Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care       Date:  1992

6.  Medically inappropriate inpatient care in West Germany.

Authors:  R Klar; U Müller; J S Mönting
Journal:  Soz Praventivmed       Date:  1990

7.  Inappropriate hospital use by patients receiving care for medical conditions: targeting utilization review.

Authors:  C DeCoster; N P Roos; K C Carrière; S Peterson
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1997-10-01       Impact factor: 8.262

8.  Physician visits, hospitalizations, and socioeconomic status: ambulatory care sensitive conditions in a canadian setting.

Authors:  Leslie L Roos; Randy Walld; Julia Uhanova; Ruth Bond
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 3.402

9.  The Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol is a poor predictor of in-hospital mortality.

Authors:  N A O'Regan; L Healy; M O Cathail; T W Law; G O'Carroll; J Clare; S Timmons; K A O'Connor
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2013-10-30       Impact factor: 1.568

10.  Validation of the paediatric appropriateness evaluation protocol in British practice.

Authors:  U Werneke; H Smith; I J Smith; J Taylor; R MacFaul
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 3.791

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.