• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Peer review checklist: reproducibility and validity of a method for evaluating the quality of ambulatory care.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
Am J Public Health. 1980 Mar;70(3):222-8. doi: 10.2105/ajph.70.3.222.
2
Criteria for evaluation of ambulatory child health care by chart audit: development and testing of a methodology. Final report of the Joint Committee on Quality Assurance of Ambulatory Health Care for Children and Youth.通过图表审核评估儿童门诊医疗保健的标准:一种方法的制定与测试。儿童与青少年门诊医疗保健质量保证联合委员会的最终报告。
Pediatrics. 1975 Oct;56(4 PT 2 SUPPL):625-92.
3
Physician performance in a prepaid health plan: results of the peer review program of the Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York.预付费健康计划中的医生表现:大纽约健康保险计划同行评审项目的结果
Med Care. 1982 Feb;20(2):127-42.
4
Peer review in ambulatory care: use of explicit criteria and implicit judgments.门诊护理中的同行评审:明确标准和隐性判断的运用
Med Care. 1979 Mar;17(3 Suppl):i-vi, 1-73.
5
Assessment of ambulatory care: application of the tracer methodology.门诊护理评估:追踪方法的应用
Med Care. 1976 Jan;14(1):1-12. doi: 10.1097/00005650-197601000-00001.
6
Evaluation of the new mexico peer review system, 1971 to 1973.
Med Care. 1976 Dec;14(12 Suppl):1-122.
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.
9
Results of the peer assessment program of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.安大略省医师和外科医生学院同行评估项目的结果。
Can Med Assoc J. 1984 Sep 15;131(6):557-61.
10
Pilot study to develop and test a generic peer feedback instrument to review videotaped consultations in primary care.一项开发并测试通用同伴反馈工具以审查初级保健中录像会诊的试点研究。
Qual Prim Care. 2011;19(6):347-54.

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

1
Just what the doctor ordered. An analysis of treatment in a general practice.正是医生所需要的。一项全科医疗中的治疗分析。
Br Med J. 1960 Jul 23;2(5194):293-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.5194.293.
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.
7
The relationship of physicians' medical recording performance to their medical care performance.医生的医疗记录表现与其医疗护理表现之间的关系。
Med Care. 1974 Aug;12(8):714-20. doi: 10.1097/00005650-197408000-00009.
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.
9
Primary care in a penal institution. A study of health care problems encountered.惩教机构中的初级保健。对所遇到的医疗保健问题的一项研究。
Med Care. 1975 Sep;13(9):775-81. doi: 10.1097/00005650-197509000-00007.

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.

DOI:10.2105/ajph.70.3.222
PMID:7356083
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1619375/
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。