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.
147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3881333)
21. The evaluation of Professional Standards Review Organizations: their part in the struggle to assure appropriate health care. Davis FA Bull N Y Acad Med; 1982; 58(1):67-76. PubMed ID: 6810978 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. PRO-hospital contracts: the last chance to ease burden of reviews. O'Hare PK; Collier G Mod Healthc; 1984 Oct; 14(13):54-8. PubMed ID: 10299720 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Expecting PRO review: here are some practical considerations. Aronson P Rev Fed Am Hosp; 1985; 18(1):88-91. PubMed ID: 10299866 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. 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]
27. Quality assurance. PROs struggle to keep role in private Medicare plans. Gardner J Mod Healthc; 1997 Jun; 27(25):52. PubMed ID: 10167951 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. QA in a health maintenance organization IPA model. Romano PM J Qual Assur; 1988 Dec-1989 Jan; 10(5):26-7. PubMed ID: 10312829 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Getting to know and love your PRO. Kamens EA Conn Med; 1988 May; 52(5):281-3. PubMed ID: 3135983 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. PRO review: strategies for HMOs. Siegel SH; Albritton PM; Thornhill MC GHAA J; 1988; 9(1):14-21. PubMed ID: 10302958 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Health care regulation via PSRO: the management control system of concurrent stay review. Dittman DA Socioecon Issues Health; 1980; ():39-57. PubMed ID: 10309697 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. PRO review. Part III: Quality review, intervention, and sanction. Moore S; Ryan CP; Murphy RA J Med Assoc Ga; 1989 Oct; 78(10):683-8. PubMed ID: 2677203 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. PRO changes under the fourth scope of work for Medicare. Kingsley DI N J Med; 1991 Jul; 88(7):499-500. PubMed ID: 1891129 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Who's in charge of utilization review? Ankrum AD Hosp Peer Rev; 1978 May; 3(5):60-1. PubMed ID: 10273108 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Utilization review for Medicare. Is this a good use of nurses' time? Snider ME Am J Nurs; 1977 Jan; 77(1):107-9. PubMed ID: 319665 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Professional Standards Review Organization studies length of stay for cataract extraction in District of Columbia hospitals. Zimmerman MH; Schlein P; Fuller NA; Carrier E Public Health Rep; 1981; 96(5):439-41. PubMed ID: 7197378 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]