Literature DB >> 3821224

The appropriateness of using a medical procedure. Is information in the medical record valid?

J Kosecoff, A Fink, R H Brook, M R Chassin.   

Abstract

Understanding the clinical appropriateness of a procedure's use may be critical in explaining geographic variations in its use. Little is known, however, about whether data on appropriateness can be obtained from a medical record. A national panel of physicians formulated a list of 300 mutually exclusive, detailed clinical indications for performing coronary angiography. Using this list, we compared the reasons physicians perform coronary angiography as revealed in medical records with those given in interviews with the physicians who actually did the procedure. Thirty-five of 47 eligible billing entities (74%) from two Los Angeles Professional Standards Review Organization areas participated. These physicians practiced in 14 hospitals and accounted for 81% of all angiographies performed on Medicare patients in the two areas. Sixty-six records (approximately two per physician) were reviewed; physician interviews were conducted by two trained data collectors who were blinded to each other's results. Ninety-one percent agreement was reached on the specific indication for performing coronary angiography when information from the record review and interview was compared. We conclude that medical records yield valid information on why coronary angiography is performed and that they are a suitable source to use in judging the appropriateness of that use.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3821224     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-198703000-00003

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


  10 in total

1.  Hypothetical ratings of coronary angiography appropriateness: are they associated with actual angiographic findings, mortality, and revascularisation rate? The ACRE study.

Authors:  H Hemingway; A M Crook; S Banerjee; J R Dawson; G Feder; P G Magee; A Wood; S Philpott; A Timmis
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 5.994

2.  Multi method approach to the assessment of data quality in the Finnish Medical Birth Registry.

Authors:  J Teperi
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 3.710

3.  Studying patterns of cancer care: how useful is the medical record?

Authors:  P Feigl; G Glaefke; L Ford; P Diehr; J Chu
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1988-05       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Development of review criteria for assessing the quality of management of stable angina, adult asthma, and non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus in general practice.

Authors:  S M Campbell; M O Roland; P G Shekelle; J A Cantrill; S A Buetow; D K Cragg
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1999-03

5.  Evaluation of an algorithm to identify women with carcinoma of the breast.

Authors:  L J Solin; S MacPherson; D J Schultz; N A Hanchak
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 4.460

6.  Identifying predictors of high quality care in English general practice: observational study.

Authors:  S M Campbell; M Hann; J Hacker; C Burns; D Oliver; A Thapar; N Mead; D G Safran; M O Roland
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-10-06

7.  Quality assessment for three common conditions in primary care: validity and reliability of review criteria developed by expert panels for angina, asthma and type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  S M Campbell; M Hann; J Hacker; A Durie; A Thapar; M O Roland
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2002-06

8.  Analysis of a claims database for the identification of patients with carcinoma of the breast.

Authors:  L J Solin; A Legorreta; D J Schultz; H A Levin; S Zatz; R L Goodman
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 4.460

9.  How and why community hospital clinicians document a positive screen for intimate partner violence: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Megan R Gerber; Karen S Leiter; Richard C Hermann; David H Bor
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2005-11-19       Impact factor: 2.497

Review 10.  An audit tool for assessing the appropriateness of carotid endarterectomy.

Authors:  James Kennedy; Hude Quan; Thomas E Feasby; William A Ghali
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2004-07-06       Impact factor: 2.655

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.