Literature DB >> 7356083

Peer review checklist: reproducibility and validity of a method for evaluating the quality of ambulatory care.

G E Hastings, R Sonneborn, G H Lee, L Vick, L Sasmor.   

Abstract

This report describes the construction and evaluation fo a 35-item checklist used in performing peer review of ambulatory medical records. Scores obtained by using the checklist were evaluated for reproducibility. Ten reviewers, reviewing ten records on each of two occasions judged the records consistently item by item, 74 per cent of the time; 53 per cent greater than expected by chance (p less than 0.01). Pairs of reviewers, reviewing the same ten records, were consistent with one another, item by item, 72 per cent of the time; 35 per cent greater than expected by chance (p less than 0.05). Ten sick call patients were reexamined by an especially trained Reevaluation Physician who evaluated the quality with which they had been managed at the time of sick call. The medical records of the same ten patients were then reviewed with the Peer Review Checklist. The correlation between the quality scores obtained by the two methods were 0.72 and 0.74 on two trials. A correlation coefficient of 0.44 was found between the two evaluation methods when 89 cases were reviewed by a Peer Review panel composed of 10 different physicians. Peer Review Checklist scores correlated positively with scores obtained by using a series of disease specific protocols with explicit criteria. The correlations varied from 0.28 to 0.63 with six different disease specific protocols.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1980        PMID: 7356083      PMCID: PMC1619375          DOI: 10.2105/ajph.70.3.222

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Public Health        ISSN: 0090-0036            Impact factor:   9.308


  9 in total

1.  Primary care in a penal institution. A study of health care problems encountered.

Authors:  B Engebretsen; J W Olson
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1975-09       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Just what the doctor ordered. An analysis of treatment in a general practice.

Authors:  R SCOTT; J A ANDERSON; A CARTWRIGHT
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1960-07-23

3.  Quality of medical care in hospitals.

Authors:  L S ROSENFELD
Journal:  Am J Public Health Nations Health       Date:  1957-07

4.  The relationship of physicians' medical recording performance to their medical care performance.

Authors:  T F Lyons; B C Payne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1974-08       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Quality-of-care assessment: choosing a method for peer review.

Authors:  R H Brook; F A Appel
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1973-06-21       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Quantification of agreement in psychiatric diagnosis. A new approach.

Authors:  R L Spitzer; J Cohen; J L Fleiss; J Endicott
Journal:  Arch Gen Psychiatry       Date:  1967-07

7.  A study of general practice in Massachusetts.

Authors:  J W Brown; L S Robertson; J Kosa; J J Alpert
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1971-04-12       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 8.  Evaluating the quality of medical care.

Authors:  A Donabedian
Journal:  Milbank Mem Fund Q       Date:  1966-07

9.  Peer review of medical care.

Authors:  F M Richardson
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1972 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.983

  9 in total
  1 in total

1.  How to evaluate ambulatory medical care.

Authors:  B S Hulka
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1980-03       Impact factor: 9.308

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.