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.
134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11669563)
1. Physician-reviewers' perceptions and judgments about quality of care. Weingart SN; Mukamal K; Davis RB; Davies DT; Palmer RH; Cahalane M; Hamel MB; Phillips RS; Iezzoni LI Int J Qual Health Care; 2001 Oct; 13(5):357-65. PubMed ID: 11669563 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Discrepancies between explicit and implicit review: physician and nurse assessments of complications and quality. Weingart SN; Davis RB; Palmer RH; Cahalane M; Hamel MB; Mukamal K; Phillips RS; Davies DT; Iezzoni LI Health Serv Res; 2002 Apr; 37(2):483-98. PubMed ID: 12036004 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Use of administrative data to find substandard care: validation of the complications screening program. Weingart SN; Iezzoni LI; Davis RB; Palmer RH; Cahalane M; Hamel MB; Mukamal K; Phillips RS; Davies DT; Banks NJ Med Care; 2000 Aug; 38(8):796-806. PubMed ID: 10929992 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Watching the doctor-watchers. How well do peer review organization methods detect hospital care quality problems? Rubin HR; Rogers WH; Kahn KL; Rubenstein LV; Brook RH JAMA; 1992 May; 267(17):2349-54. PubMed ID: 1564775 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Identification of in-hospital complications from claims data. Is it valid? Lawthers AG; McCarthy EP; Davis RB; Peterson LE; Palmer RH; Iezzoni LI Med Care; 2000 Aug; 38(8):785-95. PubMed ID: 10929991 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Does the Complications Screening Program flag cases with process of care problems? Using explicit criteria to judge processes. Iezzoni LI; Davis RB; Palmer RH; Cahalane M; Hamel MB; Mukamal K; Phillips RS; Banks NJ; Davis DT Int J Qual Health Care; 1999 Apr; 11(2):107-18. PubMed ID: 10442841 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Does clinical evidence support ICD-9-CM diagnosis coding of complications? McCarthy EP; Iezzoni LI; Davis RB; Palmer RH; Cahalane M; Hamel MB; Mukamal K; Phillips RS; Davies DT Med Care; 2000 Aug; 38(8):868-76. PubMed ID: 10929998 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Peer review organizations. Promises and potential pitfalls. Dans PE; Weiner JP; Otter SE N Engl J Med; 1985 Oct; 313(18):1131-7. PubMed ID: 3930964 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. PROs and the health care quality improvement initiative: insights from 50 cases of serious medical mistakes. Feldman SE; Rundall TG Med Care Rev; 1993; 50(2):123-52. PubMed ID: 10127081 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Discussion between reviewers does not improve reliability of peer review of hospital quality. Hofer TP; Bernstein SJ; DeMonner S; Hayward RA Med Care; 2000 Feb; 38(2):152-61. PubMed ID: 10659689 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A computerized system for reviewing medical records from physicians' offices. Garnick DW; Lawthers AG; Palmer RH; Moentmann SJ; Fowles J; Weiner JP Jt Comm J Qual Improv; 1994 Dec; 20(12):679-94. PubMed ID: 7881518 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Using administrative data to screen hospitals for high complication rates. Iezzoni LI; Daley J; Heeren T; Foley SM; Hughes JS; Fisher ES; Duncan CC; Coffman GA Inquiry; 1994; 31(1):40-55. PubMed ID: 8168908 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Assessment of family physicians' performance using patient charts: interrater reliability and concordance with chart-stimulated recall interview. Goulet F; Jacques A; Gagnon R; Racette P; Sieber W Eval Health Prof; 2007 Dec; 30(4):376-92. PubMed ID: 17986671 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Systemic bias in peer review: suggested causes, potential remedies. Kadar N J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A; 2010 Mar; 20(2):123-8. PubMed ID: 20230242 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The relationship of hospital characteristics and the results of peer review in six large states. Kuhn EM; Hartz AJ; Gottlieb MS; Rimm AA Med Care; 1991 Oct; 29(10):1028-38. PubMed ID: 1921522 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. PROs and poor quality medical care--they can't sanction it until they define it! Chenen AR Med Staff Couns; 1988; 2(2):25-33. PubMed ID: 10302314 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Peer review of the quality of care. Reliability and sources of variability for outcome and process assessments. Smith MA; Atherly AJ; Kane RL; Pacala JT JAMA; 1997 Nov; 278(19):1573-8. PubMed ID: 9370502 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Assessing providers of coronary revascularization: a method for peer review organizations. Hartz AJ; Kuhn EM; Kayser KL; Pryor DP; Green R; Rimm AA Am J Public Health; 1992 Dec; 82(12):1631-40. PubMed ID: 1456338 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. One peer review organization's experience in developing hospital peer groups. Sumner BM; Thompson MS; Suarez WG; Davis M; Bell JA; Shanedling SB Clin Perform Qual Health Care; 1993; 1(4):239-42. PubMed ID: 10135642 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]