Assessing quality of care: The limitation imposed by condorcet paradox

Archives of Neurology

Volumn 54, Issue 11, 1997, Pages 1351-1352

  Riggs, Jack E ^a,b  

^a WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PROTOCOL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH SERVICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

EID: 0030728810     PISSN: 00039942     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/archneur.1997.00550230028011     Document Type: Review

References (11)

1. Lundberg GD, Wennberg JE. Quality of care: a call for papers for the annual coordinated theme issues of the AMA journals. Arch Neurol. 1996;53:1220.
2. Blumenthal D. Quality of care: what is it? N Engl J Med. 1996;335:891-894.
3. Brook RH, McGlynn EA, Cleary PD. Measuring quality of care. N Engl J Med. 1996; 335:966-970.
4. Chassin MR. Improving the quality of care. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1060-1063.
5. Blumenthal D. The origins of the quality-of-care debate. N Engl J Med. 1996; 335:1146-1149.
6. Berwick DM. Payment by capitation and the quality of care. N Engl J Med. 1996; 335:1227-1231.
7. Blumenthal D, Epstein AM. The role of physicians in the future of quality management. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1328-1331.
8. Niemi RG, Riker WH. The choice of voting systems. Sci Am. 1976;234:21-27.
9. May RM. Preference and paradox. Nature. 1983;303:16-17.
10. Arrow KJ. Social Choice and Individual Values. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1963.
11. Black D. The Theory of Committees and Elections. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1958.