FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1967558049> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1967558049 endingPage "2354" @default.
• W1967558049 startingPage "2349" @default.
• W1967558049 abstract "To determine how well one state's peer review organization (PRO) judged the quality of hospital care compared with an independent, credible judgment of quality of care.Retrospective study comparing a PRO's review, including initial screening, physician review, and final judgments, with an independent study judgment based on blinded, structured, implicit reviews of hospital records.One state's medical and surgical Medicare hospitalizations during 1985 through 1987 audited randomly by the state's PRO.Stratified random sampling of records: 62 records that passed the PRO initial screening process and were not referred for PRO physician review; 50 records that failed the PRO screen and then were confirmed by PRO physicians to be quality problems.None.A study judgment of below standard or standard or above based on the mean of overall ratings by five internists for records in medical diagnosis related groups (DRGs) and by five internists and five surgeons for surgical DRGs. Each step in the PRO review was evaluated for how many records passing or failing that step were judged standard or above or below standard in the study (positive and negative predictive value) and how well that step classified records that the study judged below standard or standard or above (sensitivity and specificity).An estimated 18% of records reviewed by the PRO were below standard according to the study judgment, compared with 6.3% quality problems according to the PRO's final judgment (difference, 12%; 95% confidence interval, 1 to 23). The PRO's initial screening process failed to detect and refer for PRO physician review two of three records that the study judged below standard. In addition, only one of three of the records that PRO physicians judged to be quality problems were judged below standard by the study judgment. Therefore, the PRO's final quality of care judgment and the study judgment agreed little more than expected by chance, especially about poor quality of care. Although the PRO correctly classified 95% of the records that the study judged standard or above, it detected only 11% of records judged below standard by the study.Most of all, this PRO review process would be improved by additional preliminary screens to identify the 67% of records that the study judged below standard but that passed its initial screening. The screening process also must be more accurate in order to be cost-effective, as it was only slightly better than random sampling at correctly identifying below standard care. More reproducible physician review is also needed and might be accomplished through improved reviewer selection and training, a structured review method, and more physician reviewers per record." @default.
• W1967558049 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1967558049 creator A5006058688 @default.
• W1967558049 creator A5023928145 @default.
• W1967558049 creator A5069760216 @default.
• W1967558049 creator A5072436507 @default.
• W1967558049 creator A5075746067 @default.
• W1967558049 date "1992-05-06" @default.
• W1967558049 modified "2023-10-11" @default.
• W1967558049 title "Watching the doctor-watchers. How well do peer review organization methods detect hospital care quality problems?" @default.
• W1967558049 cites W1966279858 @default.
• W1967558049 cites W1978542639 @default.
• W1967558049 cites W1987691005 @default.
• W1967558049 cites W1999720697 @default.
• W1967558049 cites W2007383291 @default.
• W1967558049 cites W2038705819 @default.
• W1967558049 cites W2068318904 @default.
• W1967558049 cites W2078586162 @default.
• W1967558049 cites W2095512431 @default.
• W1967558049 cites W2109259567 @default.
• W1967558049 cites W2305092135 @default.
• W1967558049 cites W2401980366 @default.
• W1967558049 cites W2418362810 @default.
• W1967558049 cites W3037603091 @default.
• W1967558049 cites W70273200 @default.
• W1967558049 doi "https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.267.17.2349" @default.
• W1967558049 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1564775" @default.
• W1967558049 hasPublicationYear "1992" @default.
• W1967558049 type Work @default.
• W1967558049 sameAs 1967558049 @default.
• W1967558049 citedByCount "81" @default.
• W1967558049 countsByYear W19675580492012 @default.
• W1967558049 countsByYear W19675580492016 @default.
• W1967558049 countsByYear W19675580492019 @default.
• W1967558049 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1967558049 hasAuthorship W1967558049A5006058688 @default.
• W1967558049 hasAuthorship W1967558049A5023928145 @default.
• W1967558049 hasAuthorship W1967558049A5069760216 @default.
• W1967558049 hasAuthorship W1967558049A5072436507 @default.
• W1967558049 hasAuthorship W1967558049A5075746067 @default.
• W1967558049 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W1967558049 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W1967558049 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1967558049 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W1967558049 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W1967558049 hasConcept C187212893 @default.
• W1967558049 hasConcept C187736073 @default.
• W1967558049 hasConcept C195910791 @default.
• W1967558049 hasConcept C199521495 @default.
• W1967558049 hasConcept C2779530757 @default.
• W1967558049 hasConcept C44249647 @default.
• W1967558049 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W1967558049 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1967558049 hasConceptScore W1967558049C111472728 @default.
• W1967558049 hasConceptScore W1967558049C126322002 @default.
• W1967558049 hasConceptScore W1967558049C138885662 @default.
• W1967558049 hasConceptScore W1967558049C141071460 @default.
• W1967558049 hasConceptScore W1967558049C162324750 @default.
• W1967558049 hasConceptScore W1967558049C187212893 @default.
• W1967558049 hasConceptScore W1967558049C187736073 @default.
• W1967558049 hasConceptScore W1967558049C195910791 @default.
• W1967558049 hasConceptScore W1967558049C199521495 @default.
• W1967558049 hasConceptScore W1967558049C2779530757 @default.
• W1967558049 hasConceptScore W1967558049C44249647 @default.
• W1967558049 hasConceptScore W1967558049C512399662 @default.
• W1967558049 hasConceptScore W1967558049C71924100 @default.
• W1967558049 hasIssue "17" @default.
• W1967558049 hasLocation W19675580491 @default.
• W1967558049 hasLocation W19675580492 @default.
• W1967558049 hasOpenAccess W1967558049 @default.
• W1967558049 hasPrimaryLocation W19675580491 @default.
• W1967558049 hasRelatedWork W2030757640 @default.
• W1967558049 hasRelatedWork W2118407572 @default.
• W1967558049 hasRelatedWork W2136118406 @default.
• W1967558049 hasRelatedWork W2260291664 @default.
• W1967558049 hasRelatedWork W2360464208 @default.
• W1967558049 hasRelatedWork W2373849942 @default.
• W1967558049 hasRelatedWork W2404937507 @default.
• W1967558049 hasRelatedWork W3127564641 @default.
• W1967558049 hasRelatedWork W4366384404 @default.
• W1967558049 hasRelatedWork W151161666 @default.
• W1967558049 hasVolume "267" @default.
• W1967558049 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1967558049 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1967558049 magId "1967558049" @default.
• W1967558049 workType "article" @default.