96 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10248615)
1. The reliability of medical records.
Still S
J Am Med Rec Assoc (1980); 1980 Aug; 51(4):20-7. PubMed ID: 10248615
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Concurrent chart analysis and DRG assignment in a prospective payment environment.
Shlala TJ
J Am Med Rec Assoc; 1988 Nov; 59(11):34-40. PubMed ID: 10312715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Managing the medical record on a concurrent basis: facts and possibilities.
Berger E; Foster P; Laskowski L; Lu G; Oren D; Prado D
J Am Med Rec Assoc; 1988 May; 59(5):24-33. PubMed ID: 10287421
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Concurrent medical record analysis in a community hospital.
Lee MP
J Am Med Rec Assoc; 1984 Jun; 55(6):45-7. PubMed ID: 10310655
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Pre-billing DRG reviews set new standard.
Whalen L; Jones D
J AHIMA; 1993 Jul; 64(7):58-9. PubMed ID: 10127214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Novel plan simplifies review, saves money.
Borchardt PJ
Hosp Peer Rev; 1978 Nov; 3(11):147-8. PubMed ID: 10273106
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Quality assurance through automated monitoring and concurrent feedback using a computer-based medical information system.
Barnett GO; Winickoff R; Dorsey JL; Morgan MM; Lurie RS
Med Care; 1978 Nov; 16(11):962-70. PubMed ID: 101723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Managing the medical record on a concurrent basis: facts and possibilities. Part 2.
Berger E; Foster P; Laskowski L; Lu G; Oren D; Pardo D
J Am Med Rec Assoc; 1988 Jun; 59(6):25-37. PubMed ID: 10312524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The medical management analysis system: a professional liability warning mechanism.
Craddick JW
QRB Qual Rev Bull; 1979 Apr; 5(4):2-8. PubMed ID: 121411
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Review ensures quick response to faulty care.
Sherber J
Hospitals; 1980 Aug; 54(15):55-7. PubMed ID: 7390465
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. An effective utilization review program using accurate management information.
Hoyt JP
Healthc Comput Commun; 1985 Jan; 2(1):36-9. PubMed ID: 10310975
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Patient assessment in symphony.
Simonides D
Comput Healthc; 1987 Nov; 8(13):48-50. PubMed ID: 10284459
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. On the use of narrow age ranges in setting review dates for pediatric patients.
Ament RP
PAS Rep; 1978 Mar; 16(3):33-9. PubMed ID: 10308496
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. SMI presents alternative to current UR tools.
Hosp Peer Rev; 1983 Apr; 8(4):41-3. PubMed ID: 10278159
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Medical record professionals and the performance of concurrent review.
Alder GC
J Am Med Rec Assoc; 1986 Jun; 57(6):16-7. PubMed ID: 10276719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The development and implementation of a drug utilization review program.
Lazor-Bajcar JM; Fowler R
Can J Hosp Pharm; 1988 Feb; 41(1):11-6. PubMed ID: 10286608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Utilization review altered to advantage.
Brown DE; Levy JD
Hospitals; 1980 Mar; 54(5):83-6. PubMed ID: 7188763
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Reliability of information abstracted from patients' medical records.
Demlo LK; Campbell PM; Brown SS
Med Care; 1978 Dec; 16(12):995-1005. PubMed ID: 362083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparing results of concurrent and retrospective designs in a hospital utilization review.
Santos-Eggimann B; Sidler M; Schopfer D; Blanc T
Int J Qual Health Care; 1997 Apr; 9(2):115-20. PubMed ID: 9154497
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Data acquisition: the enigma of quality measurement.
Spath PL
Top Health Rec Manage; 1989 Dec; 10(2):1-11. PubMed ID: 10296240
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
