Peer and expert opinion and the reliability of implicit case review

Ophthalmology

Volumn 109, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 614-618

  Margo, Curtis E ^a  

^a Watson Clinic   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EXPERT SYSTEM; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; MANAGED CARE; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; OPHTHALMOLOGY; PATIENT CARE; PEER REVIEW; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; RESIDENCY EDUCATION; REVIEW; TRAINING;

EID: 0036185057     PISSN: 01616420     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0161-6420(01)00820-X     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Peer review organizations. Promises and potential pitfalls
2. The PSRO in perspective
3. Medical testimony and the expert witness
4. The reliability of peer assessments of quality of care
5. Watching the doctor-watchers. How well do peer review organization methods detect hospital care quality problems?
6. Identification of preventable trauma deaths: Confounded inquires?
7. Identifying adverse events caused by medical care: Degree of physician agreement in a retrospective chart review
8. Physician ratings of appropriate indications for six medical and surgical procedures
9. A peer review of a peer review organization
10. Effect of outcome on physician judgments of appropriateness of care
11. Inter-rater reliability of preventable death judgments
12. Evaluating the care of general medicine inpatients: How good is implicit review?
13. Variation in expert opinion in medical malpractice review
14. Do bad outcomes mean substandard care?
15. Changes in quality of care for five diseases measured by implicit review, 1981 to 1986
16. Peer review of medical care
17. The role of evidence in the consensus process: Results from a Canadian consensus exercise
18. Monitoring quality of care in the Medicare program. Two proposed systems
19. Opportunities for maloccurrence in delivery of specialized care in the managed care environment [case report]
20. What is appropriate care?
21. Reliability and validity of utilization review criteria: Appropriateness, evaluation protocol, standardized medreview instrument, and intensity-severity-discharge criteria
22. Rating the appropriateness of coronary angiography - Do practicing physicians agree with an expert panel and with each other?
23. The reproducibility of a method to identify the overuse and underuse of medical procedures
24. Surgical decision making. The reliability of clinical judgment