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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9589331)

  • 1. Cesarean section rates: effects of participation in a performance measurement project.
    Kazandjian VA; Lied TR
    Jt Comm J Qual Improv; 1998 Apr; 24(4):187-96. PubMed ID: 9589331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Risk adjustment for inter-hospital comparison of primary cesarean section rates: need, validity and parsimony.
    Fantini MP; Stivanello E; Frammartino B; Barone AP; Fusco D; Dallolio L; Cacciari P; Perucci CA
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2006 Aug; 6():100. PubMed ID: 16911770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Using the continuous quality improvement process to safely lower the cesarean section rate.
    Gregory KD; Hackmeyer P; Gold L; Johnson AI; Platt LD
    Jt Comm J Qual Improv; 1999 Dec; 25(12):619-29. PubMed ID: 10605652
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The labor-adjusted cesarean section rate--a more informative method than the cesarean section "rate" for assessing a practitioner's labor and delivery skills.
    Elliott JP; Russell MM; Dickason LA
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1997 Jul; 177(1):139-43. PubMed ID: 9240597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Lowering the cesarean section rate in a private hospital: comparison of individual physicians' rates, risk factors, and outcomes.
    Lagrew DC; Adashek JA
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1998 Jun; 178(6):1207-14. PubMed ID: 9662303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Risk-adjusted measurement of primary cesarean sections: reliable assessment of the quality of obstetrical services.
    Pasternak DP; Pine M; Nolan K; French R
    Qual Manag Health Care; 1999; 8(1):47-54. PubMed ID: 10662103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The effect of public accountability on hospital performance: trends in rates for cesarean sections and vaginal births after cesarean section in Cleveland, Ohio.
    Caron A; Neuhauser D
    Qual Manag Health Care; 1999; 7(2):1-10. PubMed ID: 10346457
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Risk adjustment for interhospital comparison of primary cesarean rates.
    Bailit JL; Dooley SL; Peaceman AN
    Obstet Gynecol; 1999 Jun; 93(6):1025-30. PubMed ID: 10362175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The effect of physician factors on the cesarean section decision.
    Burns LR; Geller SE; Wholey DR
    Med Care; 1995 Apr; 33(4):365-82. PubMed ID: 7731278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The cesarean decision in New York State, 1986. Economic and noneconomic aspects.
    Tussing AD; Wojtowycz MA
    Med Care; 1992 Jun; 30(6):529-40. PubMed ID: 1593918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Do performance indicators make a difference?
    Kazandjian VA; Thomson RG; Law WR; Waldron K
    Jt Comm J Qual Improv; 1996 Jul; 22(7):482-91. PubMed ID: 8858419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Provider distribution and variations in statewide cesarean section rates.
    Hueston WJ; Lewis-Stevenson S
    J Community Health; 2001 Feb; 26(1):1-10. PubMed ID: 11297186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Clinical application of quality improvement concepts and tools: C-Section process improvement.
    Zimmerman M; Stephens S
    J AHIMA; 1993 Mar; 64(3):63-9. PubMed ID: 10124564
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparing physician and administrator responses to cesarean section guidelines and actual practice.
    Sonnad SS; Moyer CA; Bernstein SJ
    Jt Comm J Qual Improv; 2000 Sep; 26(9):515-24. PubMed ID: 10983292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. U.S. trends in obstetric procedures, 1990-2000.
    Kozak LJ; Weeks JD
    Birth; 2002 Sep; 29(3):157-61. PubMed ID: 12153645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effect of patient risk on the volume-outcome relationship in obstetric delivery services.
    Lee KS; Kwak JM
    Health Policy; 2014 Dec; 118(3):407-12. PubMed ID: 24957418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The relationship between cesarean section and labor induction.
    Wilson BL; Effken J; Butler RJ
    J Nurs Scholarsh; 2010 Jun; 42(2):130-8. PubMed ID: 20618597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Analysis of cesarean section rates in two German hospitals applying the 10-Group Classification System.
    Pulvermacher C; Van de Vondel P; Gerzen L; Gembruch U; Welchowski T; Schmid M; Merz WM
    J Perinat Med; 2021 Sep; 49(7):818-829. PubMed ID: 33827151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Cesarean section rates in low-risk private patients managed by certified nurse-midwives and obstetricians.
    Davis LG; Riedmann GL; Sapiro M; Minogue JP; Kazer RR
    J Nurse Midwifery; 1994; 39(2):91-7. PubMed ID: 8027851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The Green Bay cesarean section study. III. Falling cesarean birth rates without a formal curtailment program.
    Sandmire HF; DeMott RK
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1994 Jun; 170(6):1790-9; discussion 1799-802. PubMed ID: 8203440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.