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.
109 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7567045)
21. PRO program to focus efforts on two objectives. Morford TG QA Rev; 1990 May; 2(4):7-8. PubMed ID: 10113752 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. Background of the PRO program. Singer JA Md Med J; 1989 Jun; 38(6):503-4. PubMed ID: 2661949 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Peer review organizations expected to have major impact on UR. Hosp Peer Rev; 1982 Nov; 7(11):136-7. PubMed ID: 10273331 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Medicare program; peer review organizations; area designation--HCFA. Final notice with comment period. Fed Regist; 1989 Jul; 54(145):31576-8. PubMed ID: 10318640 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. PSR council rejects national goals for PSROs. Hosp Peer Rev; 1979 Dec; 4(12):163-4. PubMed ID: 10273177 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Where the real roadblocks to self-policing lie. Med Econ; 1982 Apr; 59(8):85-8. PubMed ID: 10273292 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Mississippi Foundation for Medical Care in review. Davis JT J Miss State Med Assoc; 1983 Jan; 24(1):15-6. PubMed ID: 6681847 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. PSRO: an evaluation of the Professional Standards Review Organization. J Medicaid Manage; 1977; 1(3):87-9. PubMed ID: 10308911 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. The vital signs of quality improvement organizations. Pentecost MJ J Am Coll Radiol; 2005 Dec; 2(12):975-8. PubMed ID: 17411979 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Perspectives. Cops or colleagues? Fuzzy standards for judging PROs. Cunningham R Faulkner Grays Med Health; 1996 May; 50(20):suppl 1-4. PubMed ID: 10156158 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Perspectives. The expanding role of peer review. Mcgraw Hills Med Health; 1986 Dec; 40(50):suppl 4 p.. PubMed ID: 10279854 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. PSRO: the pharmacist's role in the review process. Knoben JE Hosp Formul; 1975 Jun; 10(6):287-8. PubMed ID: 10273082 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. New format for federal peer review takes hold. Wall MA OH; 1983 Feb; 27(2):21. PubMed ID: 10273324 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. PSRO Involvement: guidelines for hospitals. Savage JM Hosp Top; 1980; 58(6):12-5, 48. PubMed ID: 10273232 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Know your PRO. Shulkin DJ Pa Med; 1990 Mar; 93(3):38. PubMed ID: 2314918 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. The review process for applied-research grant proposals: suggestions for revision. Birkett NJ CMAJ; 1994 Apr; 150(8):1227-9. PubMed ID: 8162545 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. The new economics of PSRO review: an uncertain future. Luecke RW; Freeman JK Hosp Financ Manage; 1981 Apr; 35(4):56-8, 60, 62. PubMed ID: 10273247 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]