Suppr超能文献

同行评审清单:一种评估门诊医疗质量方法的可重复性和有效性

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

作者信息

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

出版信息

Am J Public Health. 1980 Mar;70(3):222-8. doi: 10.2105/ajph.70.3.222.

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.

摘要

本报告描述了用于门诊病历同行评审的一份包含35项条目的清单的构建与评估。对使用该清单获得的分数进行了可重复性评估。十位评审员分两次对十份病历进行评审,逐项目的评判一致性为74%,比预期的随机一致性高53%(p<0.01)。成对的评审员对相同的十份病历进行评审,逐项目的相互一致性为72%,比预期的随机一致性高35%(p<0.05)。十位伤病员由一位经过专门培训的重新评估医生进行复查,该医生对伤病员在伤病呼叫时的治疗质量进行评估。然后使用同行评审清单对相同十位患者的病历进行评审。在两次试验中,两种方法获得的质量分数之间的相关性分别为0.72和0.74。当由10位不同医生组成的同行评审小组对89例病例进行评审时,两种评估方法之间的相关系数为0.44。同行评审清单分数与使用一系列具有明确标准的疾病特异性方案获得的分数呈正相关。与六种不同的疾病特异性方案的相关性在0.28至0.63之间。

相似文献

7
Quality assurance in eight adult medicine group practices.八个成人医学团体诊所的质量保证
Med Care. 1984 Jul;22(7):632-43. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198407000-00005.
8
How to evaluate ambulatory medical care.如何评估门诊医疗服务。
Am J Public Health. 1980 Mar;70(3):217-8. doi: 10.2105/ajph.70.3.217.

引用本文的文献

1
How to evaluate ambulatory medical care.如何评估门诊医疗服务。
Am J Public Health. 1980 Mar;70(3):217-8. doi: 10.2105/ajph.70.3.217.

本文引用的文献

2
Quality of medical care in hospitals.医院医疗服务质量
Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1957 Jul;47(7):856-65. doi: 10.2105/ajph.47.7.856.
3
Evaluating the quality of medical care.评估医疗质量。
Milbank Mem Fund Q. 1966 Jul;44(3):Suppl:166-206.
4
A study of general practice in Massachusetts.
JAMA. 1971 Apr 12;216(2):301-6.
5
Peer review of medical care.医疗护理同行评审
Med Care. 1972 Jan-Feb;10(1):29-39. doi: 10.1097/00005650-197201000-00004.
6
Quantification of agreement in psychiatric diagnosis. A new approach.精神科诊断一致性的量化:一种新方法。
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1967 Jul;17(1):83-7. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1967.01730250085012.
8
Quality-of-care assessment: choosing a method for peer review.医疗质量评估:选择同行评审方法
N Engl J Med. 1973 Jun 21;288(25):1323-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197306212882504.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验