Assessing quality of care from hospital case notes: Comparison of reliability of two methods

Quality and Safety in Health Care

Volumn 19, Issue 6, 2010, Pages

  Hutchinson, A ^a   Coster, J E ^a   CooperK L , ^a   McIntosh, A ^a   Walters, S J ^a   Bath, P A ^b   Pearson, M ^c   Rantell, K ^a   Campbell, M J ^a   Nicholl, J ^a   Irwin, P ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^c ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HOSPITAL; HUMAN; MEDICAL AUDIT; REPRODUCIBILITY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STANDARD; UNITED KINGDOM;

EMERGENCY SERVICE, HOSPITAL; ENGLAND; HOSPITALS; HUMANS; MEDICAL AUDIT; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 78650405393     PISSN: 14753898     EISSN: 14753901     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2007.023911     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Using clinical practice guidelines to evaluate quality of care. Vol 2. Rockville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 1995.
2. Rubenstein LR, Kahn KL, Harris ER, et al. Structured implicit review of the medical record: A method for measuring the quality of inhospital medical care and a summary of quality changes following implementation of the Medicare prospective payments system. Santa Monica: RAND, 1991
3. Pearson M, Lee JL, Chang BL, et al. Structured implicit review: A new method for monitoring nursing care quality. Med Care 2000;38:1074-91.
4. Hofer TP, Asch SM, Hayward RA, et al. Profiling quality of care: Is there a role for peer review? BMC Health Serv Res 2004;4:9. http://www.biomedcentral. com/1472-6963/ 4/9 (accessed 28 Nov 2007).
5. Lilford R, Edwards A, Girling A, et al. Inter-rater reliability of case-note audit: A systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy 2007;12:173-80.
6. Hulka BS, Romm FJ, Parkerson GR, et al. Peer review in ambulatory care: Use of explicit criteria and implicit judgements. Med Care 1979;17:1-73.
7. Hayward RA, McMahon LF, Bernard AM. Evaluating the care of general medicine inpatients: How good is implicit review? Ann Intern Med 1993;118:550-6.
8. Fischoff B. Hindsight not equal to foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgement under uncertainty. J Experimental Psychol 1975;1:288-99.
9. Ashton C, Kuykendall D, Johnson ML, et al. An empirical assessment of the validity of explicit and implicit process of care criteria for quality assessment. Med Care 1999;37:798-808.
10. Localio RA, Weaver SL, Landis R, et al. Identifying adverse events caused by medical care: Degree of physician agreement in a retrospective chart review. Ann Intern Med 1996;125:457-64.
11. Hayward RA, Hofer TPE. Estimating hospital deaths due to medical errors: Preventability is in the eye of the reviewer. JAMA 2001;286:415-20.
12. Rudd AG, Lowe D, Irwin P, et al. Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party. National stroke audit: A tool for change? Qual Health Care 2001;10:141-51.
13. Hutchinson A, McIntosh A, Anderson J, et al. Developing primary care review criteria from evidenced-based guidelines: Coronary heart disease as a model. BJGP 2003;53:691-6.
14. The North of England Study of Standards and Performance in General Practice. Medical audit in general practice. I: Effects on doctors' clinical behaviour for common childhood conditions. BMJ 1992;304:1480-4.
15. Camacho LA, Rubin HR. Assessment of the validity and reliability of three systems of medical record screening for quality of care assessment. Med Care 1998;36:748-51.
16. Mohammed MA, Mant J, Bentham L, et al. Process and mortality of stroke patients with and without do not resuscitate order in the West Midlands, UK. Int J Qual Healthcare 2006;18:102-6.
17. Thomas EJ, Studdert DM, Brennan TA. The reliability of medical record review for estimating adverse event rates. Ann Intern Med 2002;136:812-16.
18. Weingart SN, Davis RB, Palmer RH, et al. Discrepancies between explicit and implicit review: Physician and nurse assessments of complication and quality. Health Serv Res 2002;32:483-98.
19. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in adults in primary and secondary care. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2004.
20. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Chronic heart failure: Management of chronic heart failure in adults in primary and secondary care. Clinical Guideline 5. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2003
21. Hadorn DC, Baker DW, Kamberg CJ, et al. Practice guidelines. Phase II of the AHCPRsponsored heart failure guideline: Translating practice recommendations into review criteria. J Qual Improv 1996;22:265-76.
22. StataCorp. Stata statistical software: Release 9. College Station (TX): StataCorp LP, 2005.
23. Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd edn. New York: Wiley, 1981.
24. Wardle TD, Burnham R, Greig E, et al. A confidential study of deaths after emergency medical admission: Issues relating to quality of care. Clin Med 2003;3:425-34.
25. Gompertz PH, Irwin P, Morris R, et al. Reliability and validity of the Intercollegiate Stroke Audit Package. J Eval Clin Prac 2001;7:1-11.
26. Gompertz P, Dennis M, Hopkins A, et al. Development and reliability of the stroke audit form. UK Stroke Audit Group. Age Aging 1994;23:378-83.
27. Potter J, Peel P, Mian S, et al. National audit of continence care for older people: Management of faecal incontinence. Age Ageing 2007;36:268-73.
28. Lilford RJ, Mohammed MA, Brauholtz D, et al. The measurement of active errors: Methodology issues. QSHC 2003;12:ii8-ii12.
29. http://www.healthcarecommission.org.uk/national clinical audit/ (accessed 28 Nov 2008).