Literature DB >> 3352334

Measuring the clinical appropriateness of the use of a procedure. Can we do it?

K L Kahn1, J Kosecoff, M R Chassin, M F Flynn, A Fink, N Pattaphongse, D H Solomon, R H Brook.   

Abstract

Increasing attention is being paid to data on geographic differences in population-based rates of use of medical and surgical procedures. To understand these differences and to determine what level of use is appropriate, a method is needed to judge the clinical appropriateness of services. We recently developed and tested such a method in two large, urban geographic areas. Eighty-one medical records from a randomly selected sample of 30 billing entities (46 physicians) who performed upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE) on Medicare patients were abstracted. Ninety-four percent of physicians who were asked agreed to participate. Reliability testing showed 99% agreement on items abstracted from a subset of records independently reviewed by two abstractors. Based on the abstractions, each patient could be assigned at least one (mean 2.2) specific clinical indication for which UGIE was performed. Using ratings derived from a previously held panel meeting, it was possible to evaluate the appropriateness of the indications for each UGIE.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3352334     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-198804000-00010

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


  15 in total

1.  A method for rating charts to identify and classify patients with medically unexplained symptoms.

Authors:  Robert C Smith; Elie Korban; Mohammed Kanj; Robert Haddad; Judith S Lyles; Catherine Lein; Joseph C Gardiner; Annemarie Hodges; Francesca C Dwamena; John Coffey; Clare Collins
Journal:  Psychother Psychosom       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 17.659

2.  What do we mean by appropriate health care? Report of a working group prepared for the Director of Research and Development of the NHS Management Executive.

Authors: 
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1993-06

3.  Comparing the quality of referrals of general practitioners with high and average referral rates: an independent panel review.

Authors:  J A Knottnerus; J Joosten; J Daams
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 4.  Cancer risks associated with external radiation from diagnostic imaging procedures.

Authors:  Martha S Linet; Thomas L Slovis; Donald L Miller; Ruth Kleinerman; Choonsik Lee; Preetha Rajaraman; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2012-02-03       Impact factor: 508.702

5.  A confidential enquiry into emergency hospital admissions on the Isle of Wight, UK.

Authors:  M Denman-Johnson; P Bingham; S George
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 3.710

6.  Quality of care indicators for the rehabilitation of children with traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  Frederick P Rivara; Stephanie K Ennis; Rita Mangione-Smith; Ellen J MacKenzie; Kenneth M Jaffe
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2012-01-26       Impact factor: 3.966

7.  Lifestyle drugs: determining their value and who should pay.

Authors:  D Mitrany
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Appropriateness in health care delivery: definitions, measurement and policy implications.

Authors:  J N Lavis; G M Anderson
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1996-02-01       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 9.  Some observations on attempts to measure appropriateness of care.

Authors:  N R Hicks
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-09-17

10.  Indicators of the appropriateness of long-term prescribing in general practice in the United Kingdom: consensus development, face and content validity, feasibility, and reliability.

Authors:  J A Cantrill; B Sibbald; S Buetow
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1998-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.