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.
167 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 530193)
21. New JCAH standards affect medical staff, quality assurance. Kucera WR Health Prog; 1984 Nov; 65(10):38-43. PubMed ID: 10289591 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. The physician and hospital privileges. Hirsch HL Leg Med Q; 1981-1983; 5-7():179-91. PubMed ID: 10287959 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. What the crackdown on hospital privileges means to you. Horsley JE Med Econ; 1979 Aug; 56(17):93, 96-8. PubMed ID: 10243250 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Quality assurance in Australia's first registered and accredited free standing day surgery facility. Tippett GH; Cashman P Aust Clin Rev; 1987 Jun; 7(25):102-8. PubMed ID: 3619762 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Attitides towards peer review. Garrick CE; Cox KR; Rotem A; Whaite A Aust Fam Physician; 1979 May; 8(5):554-8. PubMed ID: 464908 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Is HCQIA (Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986) protecting peer review from antitrust claims? Cross LL Healthspan; 1993 Jun; 10(6):11-3. PubMed ID: 10127301 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Quality assurance in the provision of hospital care. Role of the administrator. Mansfield EO Hospitals; 1974 Mar; 48(5):71-3. PubMed ID: 4593006 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Is high-quality care assessable? McKillop W Hospitals; 1975 Jan; 49(2):43-7. PubMed ID: 1167326 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. The evaluation of hospital medical staff performance--does health care review help? Barnes RH AHME J; 1976; 9(1):10-2. PubMed ID: 1035834 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. The real deal on holding successful case reviews. Spath P Hosp Peer Rev; 2007 Oct; 32(10):145-8. PubMed ID: 17957886 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Duties and potential liability of nonhospital entities in credentialing physicians. Griffith RL Med Staff Couns; 1991; 5(1):7-17. PubMed ID: 10160755 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. The legal perspective. How much process is due? Johnson RL Trustee; 1979 Oct; 32(10):12-4, 16, 19-20. PubMed ID: 10289216 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Medical staff motivation and peer review. Merry MD Top Health Rec Manage; 1984 Dec; 5(2):21-31. PubMed ID: 10268842 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. California court clarifies medical staff hearing procedures. Christensen JD Health Law Vigil; 1988 Apr; 11(9):7-8. PubMed ID: 10286816 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Implementing the Health Care Quality Improvement Act. Pugsley SC J Health Hosp Law; 1990 Feb; 23(2):42-52. PubMed ID: 10106379 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. The peer review privilege: a dying cause? McKinney P J Health Hosp Law; 1992 Jul; 25(7):201-11, 215. PubMed ID: 10123592 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Medical staff privileges and the antitrust laws: does the Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine apply? Meghrigian AG Med Staff Couns; 1992; 6(2):9-16. PubMed ID: 10116795 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. The evolution of quality assurance systems in health care--a personal retrospective. Fifer WR Med Staff Couns; 1990; 4(1):11-20. PubMed ID: 10106653 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]