Literature DB >> 29796698

[Peer review-can we detect risk factors and errors to improve the quality of patient care?]

T Steiner1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Concepts for measuring and improving the quality of patient care in hospitals have become increasingly important in recent years.
OBJECTIVES: The peer review procedure which has been developed by the Helios Clinic Group and Initiative for Quality Medicine (IQM) is described.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In peer review, medical records are reviewed by experienced external physicians. Inadequacies are identified, improvement protocols initiated, and concrete measures for improvement of patient care derived.
RESULTS: The described procedure is able to identify patient risks and errors during the course of treatment with the subsequent goal of avoiding repetition. In a retrospective, observational quality management study, peer review led to a significant decrease in mortality rates for various diseases.
CONCLUSIONS: Peer review represents the optimal procedure of medical quality management by systematic review and open discussion with colleagues.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Medical errors; Mortality; Patient safety; Quality assurance; Quality of life

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29796698     DOI: 10.1007/s00120-018-0662-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urologe A        ISSN: 0340-2592            Impact factor:   0.639


  10 in total

1.  Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review.

Authors:  C Vincent; G Neale; M Woloshynowych
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-03-03

2.  A broader concept of medical errors.

Authors:  Thomas H Lee
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-12-12       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Is risk-adjusted mortality an indicator of quality of care in general surgery?: a comparison of risk adjustment to peer review.

Authors:  Steven R Shackford; Neil Hyman; Talia Ben-Jacob; John Ratliff
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  A report card system using error profile analysis and concurrent morbidity and mortality review: surgical outcome analysis, part II.

Authors:  Anthony C Antonacci; Steven Lam; Valentina Lavarias; Peter Homel; Roland A Eavey
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2008-03-31       Impact factor: 2.192

5.  Estimating hospital deaths due to medical errors: preventability is in the eye of the reviewer.

Authors:  R A Hayward; T P Hofer
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-07-25       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  The Quality in Australian Health Care Study.

Authors:  R M Wilson; W B Runciman; R W Gibberd; B T Harrison; L Newby; J D Hamilton
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  1995-11-06       Impact factor: 7.738

7.  Patterns of errors contributing to trauma mortality: lessons learned from 2,594 deaths.

Authors:  Russell L Gruen; Gregory J Jurkovich; Lisa K McIntyre; Hugh M Foy; Ronald V Maier
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 12.969

8.  Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I.

Authors:  T A Brennan; L L Leape; N M Laird; L Hebert; A R Localio; A G Lawthers; J P Newhouse; P C Weiler; H H Hiatt
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1991-02-07       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  The effect of peer review on mortality rates.

Authors:  W Krahwinkel; E Schuler; M Liebetrau; A Meier-Hellmann; J Zacher; R Kuhlen
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2016-07-15       Impact factor: 2.038

10.  Relationship between preventable hospital deaths and other measures of safety: an exploratory study.

Authors:  Helen Hogan; Frances Healey; Graham Neale; Richard Thomson; Charles Vincent; Nick Black
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 2.038

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.