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.
103 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 418276)
1. A comment on "A cost benefit analysis of continued stay certification. Sheehy DP Med Care; 1978 Apr; 16(4):356-8. PubMed ID: 418276 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Criteria for hospital admission. Sederer LI; Summergrad P Hosp Community Psychiatry; 1993 Feb; 44(2):116-8. PubMed ID: 8432494 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Midwest Foundation for Medical Care, Cincinnati. Hogg SP Ohio State Med J; 1979 May; 75(5):313-6. PubMed ID: 111197 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. The multiple costs of accountability. Nestler WB AHME J; 1975; 8(1):12-4. PubMed ID: 10237061 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. H.E.W. model cuts need for U.R. coordinators. Hosp Peer Rev; 1979 Jul; 4(7):94-5. PubMed ID: 10243061 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Onsite concurrent review: impacts on utilization, medical complications and expense. Smith RB; Gotowka TD Benefits Q; 1991; 7(4):82-90. PubMed ID: 10116961 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. New systems can mean real savings. Part 2: Preadmission testing, concurrent review and outpatient surgery. Magerlein DB; Hancock WM; Butler FW; Mallet GM; Young DR Hosp Financ Manage; 1978 May; 32(5):18-22, 24, 26. PubMed ID: 10306880 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Evaluation of a new strategy for continued stay review in hospitals. Hirsch EO; Rimm AA; Welsch RG Med Care; 1977 Nov; 15(11):906-14. PubMed ID: 926872 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The evolution of the PSRO hospital review system. Goran MJ Med Care; 1979 May; 17(5 Suppl):1-47. PubMed ID: 107373 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Can the psro's be cost effective? A study of the effect of the Commonwealth Health Agencies monitoring program on the length of stay of Medicaid patients in Massachusetts. Fulchiero A; Miller S; Foley CR; Ballantine HT; Amorosino CS N Engl J Med; 1978 Sep; 299(11):574-80. PubMed ID: 98710 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The dynamics of utilization review: a case study of 44 Massachusetts hospitals. Gertman PM; Egdahl RE Ann Surg; 1978 Oct; 188(4):544-51. PubMed ID: 358928 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. The focused review process: a utilization management firm's experience with length of stay guidelines. Nelson MF; Christenson RH Jt Comm J Qual Improv; 1995 Sep; 21(9):477-87. PubMed ID: 8541990 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. The uses of utilization review. Sieverts S N Engl J Med; 1978 Sep; 299(11):601-2. PubMed ID: 98712 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of inpatient utilization to optimal standards. Dymowski RJ Manag Care Q; 1997; 5(1):33-41. PubMed ID: 10164648 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Utilization review altered to advantage. Brown DE; Levy JD Hospitals; 1980 Mar; 54(5):83-6. PubMed ID: 7188763 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. To stay or not to stay. The assessment of appropriate hospital stay: a Dutch report. Panis LJ; Verheggen FW; Pop P Int J Qual Health Care; 2002 Feb; 14(1):55-67. PubMed ID: 11873763 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Reassessing the early effect of concurrent review on length of stay: Illinois, 1971--72. Wylie CM; Flashner BA Med Care; 1979 Jun; 17(6):607-17. PubMed ID: 376966 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]