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.
155 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2710420)
21. How physicians can avoid problems with the PRO. Ponder S Colo Med; 1989 Dec; 86(18):387-8. PubMed ID: 2689059 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. On changing relations with the PRO or belling the cat. Loschen DJ Nebr Med J; 1992 Jun; 77(6):119-20. PubMed ID: 1620264 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Pro third scope of work: two major changes. Ponder S Colo Med; 1989 Nov; 86(17):344-5. PubMed ID: 2680235 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Quality Assurance Act could 'watch' HHAs. Home Health J; 1986 Mar; 7(3):4, 8. PubMed ID: 10300707 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Medical review organizations: a model state immunity statute. Kopit WG; Shapiro LE; Eaton KB Group Pract; 1980 Apr; 29(4):17-20. PubMed ID: 10273186 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Requiem for PSRO (1972--1982). Pryor J N Y State J Med; 1983 Apr; 83(5):687-8. PubMed ID: 6575271 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. [Quality assurance and continuous quality improvement--assessment of the current status of physician self-control for quality assurance in medicine 1955-1995]. Ollenschläger G; Thomeczek C Gesundheitswesen; 1996 Jul; 58(7):360-71. PubMed ID: 8963101 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Peer review in the university hospital setting. Wirtschafter DD Ala J Med Sci; 1986 Jan; 23(1):62-6. PubMed ID: 3456729 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Can you avoid PRO sanctions? Documentation may be the key... Edwards KS Ohio Med; 1990 Aug; 86(8):578-9. PubMed ID: 2398987 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Private review-its impact on health care and physicians. Sandrick KM QRB Qual Rev Bull; 1982 Apr; 8(4):5-6. PubMed ID: 6806740 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. A second opinion on PROS. Weissenstein E Mod Healthc; 1994 May; 24(19):45-6, 48, 50. PubMed ID: 10133800 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Professional review in Australia. Brand IA QRB Qual Rev Bull; 1981 Feb; 7(2):2-6. PubMed ID: 6785703 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Providers question PROs' effectiveness. Critics contend peer review organizations are too costly and fail to improve the quality of care. Rothschild RD Health Prog; 1992; 73(6):28-32, 38. PubMed ID: 10119535 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Physician peer review. Serving the patient or the physician? Cate MJ J Leg Med; 1999 Dec; 20(4):479-506. PubMed ID: 10641461 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. You and the PRO. Rheney JW J S C Med Assoc; 1990 Jul; 86(7):406-10. PubMed ID: 2398739 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. The professional practice climate and peer review. Hawthorne J; Roe C; Woods D Nursingconnections; 1989; 2(1):47-54. PubMed ID: 2716863 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]