Nordic gynecologists' opinion on quality assessment registers: A questionnaire study and presentation of Nordic guidelines for quality assessment of gynecological surgery

Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica

Volumn 83, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 563-569

  Dueholm, Margit ^a   Rokkones, Erik ^b   Löfgren, Mats ^c   Härkki, Päivi ^d   Arason, Gudmundur ^e  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^b OSLO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^c UMEÅ UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^d JORVI HOSPITAL   (Finland)

^e Depts of Obstetrics and Gynecology   (Iceland)

Author keywords

Guidelines; Gynecology; Quality assessment; Registers; Surgery

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; GYNECOLOGIC SURGERY; HOSPITAL; HOSPITAL ADMISSION; HUMAN; MEDICAL PRACTICE; PATIENT MONITORING; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; QUESTIONNAIRE; REGISTER; TREATMENT PLANNING;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; GYNECOLOGY; HUMANS; NORWAY; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REGISTRIES;

EID: 2542576228     PISSN: 00016349     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0001-6349.2004.00514.x     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Collopy BT. Clinical indicators in accreditation: an effective stimulus to improve patient care. Int J Qual Health Care 2000; 12: 211-6.
2. Berwick DM, James B, Coye MJ. Connections between quality measurement and improvement. Med Care 2003; 41: I30-I38.
3. Marshall MN, Shekelle PG, Leatherman S, Brook RH. The public release of performance data: what do we expect to gain? A review of the evidence. JAMA 2000; 283: 1866-74.
4. Makinen J, Johansson J, Tomas C, Tomas E, Heinonen PK, Laatikainen T et al. Morbidity of 10 110 hysterectomies by type of approach. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 1473-8.
5. Selbmann HK, Geraedts M. Internal and external measures of quality assurance in gynecological surgery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1997; 71: 223-7.
6. Mant J. Process versus outcome indicators in the assessment of quality of health care. Int J Qual Health Care 2001; 13: 475-80.
7. Endahl LA, Utzon J. [Will publication of quality indicators in the health service improve the quality? International experiences and Danish perspectives]. Ugeskr Laeger 2002; 164: 4380-4.
8. Haller U, Wyss P, Schilling J, Gutzwiller F. Quality assessment in gynecology and obstetrics. Projects and experience in Switzerland. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1998; 76: 75-9.
9. Cartwright A. Interviews or postal questionnaires? Comparisons of data about women's experiences with maternity services. Milbank Q 1988; 66: 172-89.
10. Ladfors MB, Lofgren ME, Gabriel B, Olsson JH. Patients' accept questionnaires integrated in clinical routine: a study by the Swedish National Register for Gynecological Surgery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2002; 81: 437-42.
11. Black N, Petticrew M, Ginzler M, Flood A, Smith J, Williams G et al. Do doctors and patients agree? Views of the outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1991; 7: 533-44.
12. Harkki-Siren P, Sjoberg J, Makinen J, Heinonen PK, Kauko M, Tomas E et al. Finnish national register of laparoscopic hysterectomies: a review and complications of 1165 operations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 176: 118-22.
13. Kuuva N, Nilsson CG. A nationwide analysis of complications associated with the tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) procedure. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2002; 81: 72-7.
14. Lofgren M. [The linkage between computerized medical record systems and the national quality registries is not functioning. The catch of data 'at the source' is prevented]. Lakartidningen 1999; 96: 4035-9.
15. James B. Information system concepts for quality measurement. Med Care 2003; 41: I71-I79.
16. Rahmqvist M. Patient satisfaction in relation to age, health status and other background factors: a model for comparisons of care units. Int J Qual Health Care 2001; 13: 385-90.
17. Broder MS, Kanouse DE, Mittman BS, Bernstein SJ. The appropriateness of recommendations for hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 95: 199-205.
18. Leinonen T, Leino-Kilpi H, Stahlberg MR, Lertola K. The quality of perioperative care, development of a tool for the perceptions of patients. J Adv Nurs 2001; 35: 294-306.
19. McGlynn EA. Selecting common measures of quality and system performance. Med Care 2003; 41: I39-I47.
20. Mainz J, Bartels PD, Laustsen S, Jorgensen T, Thulstrup AM, Linneberg AR et al. [The National Indicator Project for monitoring and improvement of professional performance within health care]. Ugeskr Laeger 2001; 163: 6401-6.
21. Kjaergaard J, Jensen LP, Frolich A, Norgaard L. [Clinical indicators and quality databases - a review]. Ugeskr Laeger 2002; 164: 4392-8.
22. Schneider EC, Riehl V, Courte-Wienecke S, Eddy DM, Sennett C. Enhancing performance measurement: NCQA's road map for a health information framework. National Committee for Quality Assurance. JAMA 1999; 282: 1184-90.
23. Foy R, MacLennan G, Grimshaw J, Penney G, Campbell M, Grol R. Attributes of clinical recommendations that influence change in practice following audit and feedback. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 717-22.
24. Peters J, McManus IC, Hutchinson A. Good Medical Practice: comparing the views of doctors and the general population. Med Educ 2001; 35: 52-9.