Literature DB >> 7050555

A review of methods for ambulatory medical care evaluations.

R H Palmer, H R Nesson.   

Abstract

Medical Care Evaluations (MCEs) are in widespread use in hospitals in the United States as a means of evaluating and improving the quality of patient care. Increasingly, MCEs are required or used in ambulatory care facilities, particularly group practices. Mandatory quality assurance programs require internal review subject to monitoring by external reviewers. For internal self-evaluation, multiple simple task-oriented evaluations prove more feasible than the complex multifaceted all-in-one evaluations often used by external reviewers. A detailed review of methods for designing such focused, internally conducted evaluations of medical care is presented, covering the following issues: identification of problems for evaluation; use of process versus outcome data; choice of data source, topics and criteria; indices for case identification; units of care to be studied; and feedback interventions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1982        PMID: 7050555     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-198208000-00002

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


  8 in total

1.  Five-year results of the peer assessment program of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

Authors:  R G McAuley; W M Paul; G H Morrison; R F Beckett; C H Goldsmith
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1990-12-01       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Development and evaluation of a quality assessment instrument for occupational physicians.

Authors:  W E van der Weide; J H Verbeek; F J van Dijk; C T Hulshof
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 4.402

3.  Assessing the quality of care in family physicians' practices.

Authors:  A E Borgiel; J I Williams; G M Anderson; M J Bass; E V Dunn; C T Lamont; R A Spasoff; D I Rice
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1985-04       Impact factor: 3.275

4.  Quality of care in family practice: does residency training make a difference?

Authors:  A E Borgiel; J I Williams; M J Bass; E V Dunn; M K Evensen; C T Lamont; P J MacDonald; J M McCoy; R A Spasoff
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1989-05-01       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Should physicians perform their own quality assurance audits?

Authors:  W J Brady; D C Hissa; M McConnell; R G Wones
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1988 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Resource requirements for evaluating ambulatory health care.

Authors:  M S Thompson; R H Palmer; J K Rothrock; R Strain; L H Brachman; E A Wright
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1984-11       Impact factor: 9.308

7.  Evaluation of primary care in a community clinic by means of explicit process criteria.

Authors:  S Sheps; A Robertson
Journal:  Can Med Assoc J       Date:  1984-10-15       Impact factor: 8.262

8.  A clinically integrated post-graduate training programme in evidence-based medicine versus 'no intervention' for improving disability evaluations: a cluster randomised clinical trial.

Authors:  Rob Kok; Jan L Hoving; Paul B A Smits; Sarah M Ketelaar; Frank J H van Dijk; Jos H Verbeek
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.