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.
101 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20868549)
61. Radiology peer review as an opportunity to reduce errors and improve patient care. Halsted MJ J Am Coll Radiol; 2004 Dec; 1(12):984-7. PubMed ID: 17411742 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
62. Peer evaluation. A visual picture. Dancer S; Johnson T; Zauner J; Burch C Nurs Manage; 1997 Nov; 28(11):57-9. PubMed ID: 9385160 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
63. You'll soon need to update your PPR every year. Hosp Peer Rev; 2004 Dec; 29(12):172-4. PubMed ID: 15597908 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
64. Toward a peer review process for medical decision analysis models. Sonnenberg FA; Roberts MS; Tsevat J; Wong JB; Barry M; Kent DL Med Care; 1994 Jul; 32(7 Suppl):JS52-64. PubMed ID: 8028413 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
65. What is a peer review organization anyway? What nurses need to know. Pilous B Ohio Nurses Rev; 2003 Apr; 78(4):5-7, 10-1. PubMed ID: 15134016 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
67. Do we need the inspector to call? Crisp H BMJ; 2018 Oct; 363():k4491. PubMed ID: 30377201 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
68. Do you lack resources for data collection? Use these strategies. Hosp Peer Rev; 2008 Jul; 33(7):89-92. PubMed ID: 19035031 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
69. Peer review. How it works for us. Korsnes NJ J Mich Dent Assoc; 1994; 76(6):36-8. PubMed ID: 9508929 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
70. Collect these data to assess nursing quality. Hosp Peer Rev; 2008 Jul; 33(7):92-4. PubMed ID: 19035032 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
71. Appraisal information needs of newly qualified GPs. Keely J Educ Prim Care; 2011 Nov; 22(6):430-2. PubMed ID: 22413667 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
72. Embedding social inclusion in general practice: time for action. Gill PS; Hegenbarth A Br J Gen Pract; 2013 Dec; 63(617):622-3. PubMed ID: 24351462 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
73. Dental practice review in Ontario. O'Keefe JP J Can Dent Assoc; 1998 Mar; 64(3):200, 203. PubMed ID: 9558814 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
74. Peer review in a quality assurance program: a physician acceptance model for a teaching hospital service. Embry R; Hansen M Adm Radiol; 1994 Apr; 13(4):43, 48. PubMed ID: 10134643 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
75. Hospitals tune up cardiac care through 'blind dates'. Healthc Benchmarks; 2000 Oct; 7(10):116-7. PubMed ID: 11143112 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
76. The assessment of poorly performing doctors: the development of the assessment programmes for the General Medical Council's Performance Procedures. Southgate L; Cox J; David T; Hatch D; Howes A; Johnson N; Jolly B; Macdonald E; McAvoy P; McCrorie P; Turner J Med Educ; 2001 Dec; 35 Suppl 1():2-8. PubMed ID: 11895250 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
77. The mean performance regression, a method of objective surgical peer review. Millili JJ N J Med; 1994 Mar; 91(3):167-9. PubMed ID: 8028804 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
78. Facing a competence review. Cook P Nurs N Z; 2009 Sep; 15(8):26. PubMed ID: 19891142 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
79. RATs: Quality not Quantity. Anthony J Br J Gen Pract; 2015 Jul; 65(636):361-2. PubMed ID: 26120118 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
80. What should we measure: infection or infection control? Nash J Commun Dis Public Health; 2004 Dec; 7(4):239-40. PubMed ID: 15779781 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]