These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
177 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10124501)
1. New direction for PRO program presents challenges for hospitals. Granatir T Trustee; 1993 Mar; 46(3):12-3. PubMed ID: 10124501 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. PROs' new quality improvement focus: will it work in practice? Hudson T Hospitals; 1991 Nov; 65(21):48-50. PubMed ID: 1916726 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Review: feedback about practice patterns for measurable improvements in quality of care--a challenge for PROs under the Health Care Quality Improvement Program. Hayes RP; Ballard DJ Clin Perform Qual Health Care; 1995; 3(1):15-22. PubMed ID: 10141395 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. PRO review of practice patterns. Heller C Healthspan; 1987 Jul; 4(7):16-7. PubMed ID: 10283098 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. HCFA's close encounter with CQI. QRC Advis; 1992 May; 8(7):1-7. PubMed ID: 10118704 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. The PRO utilization and quality review process: an overview--Part I. Politser P Bull Am Coll Surg; 1989 May; 74(5):17-22. PubMed ID: 10303472 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Data on employee physician profiling. Emmons DW; Wozniak GD; Otten RD; Baker NA J Health Hosp Law; 1993 Mar; 26(3):73-82. PubMed ID: 10127074 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Peer review shifts focus to patterns of care. Carlson B Indiana Med; 1994; 87(6):458-61. PubMed ID: 7806858 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. The new scope of work: what it means to PROs and providers. Siegel SH Healthc Financ Manage; 1986 Aug; 40(8):64-8. PubMed ID: 10277300 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Controlling the volume of ineffective medical services. Internist; 1989 Mar; 30(3):25-6. PubMed ID: 10293243 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Creation of hospital peer groups. Zodet MW; Clark JD Clin Perform Qual Health Care; 1996; 4(1):51-7. PubMed ID: 10156550 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Getting at the facts on imaging utilization growth. Moser JW J Am Coll Radiol; 2005 Sep; 2(9):720-4. PubMed ID: 17411917 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Medicare program; utilization and quality control peer review program; solicitation of comments on proposed PRO program scope of work--HCFA. Notice. Fed Regist; 1985 Nov; 50(218):46702. PubMed ID: 10300403 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. PRO manual changes details of review. Cofer J J Am Med Rec Assoc; 1985 May; 56(5):24-7. PubMed ID: 10273648 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The ever-evolving PRO program. Interview by Mary McNamara Bennett. Webber AH Internist; 1987 Aug; 28(7):14-7. PubMed ID: 10288607 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Perspectives. PRO goals: realistic or risky? Wash Rep Med Health; 1984 Aug; 31(32):suppl 4p. PubMed ID: 10273546 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Analyzing patterns-of-treatment data to provide feedback to physicians. Cave DG; Geehr EC Med Interface; 1994 Jul; 7(7):117-26, 128. PubMed ID: 10135991 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A slow trickledown. Data on efficacy of beta blockers belatedly spur use. Moore JD Mod Healthc; 1998 Sep; 28(37):70. PubMed ID: 10183097 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. New developments at the Connecticut Peer Review Organization. Meehan TP Conn Med; 1993 Aug; 57(8):533-5. PubMed ID: 8243082 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]