Reliability of the assessment of appropriateness of diagnostic test request behavior

Studies in Health Technology and Informatics

Volumn 84, Issue , 2001, Pages 1112-1115

  Bindels, Rianne ^a   Winkens, Ron A G ^a,b   Van Wersch, Jan W J ^c   Pop, Peter ^b   Hasman, Arie ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c Sittard Geleen Heerlen   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Clinical Decision Support System; Diagnostic Test; Observer Variation; Practice Guidelines; Primary Health Care

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; DIAGNOSIS; RELIABILITY;

CLINICAL DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; DIAGNOSTIC TESTS; OBSERVER VARIATIONS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; PRIMARY HEALTHCARE;

TESTING;

ARTICLE; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; OBSERVER VARIATION; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RANDOMIZATION; REPRODUCIBILITY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; UTILIZATION REVIEW; VALIDATION STUDY;

DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS, CLINICAL; DIAGNOSTIC TESTS, ROUTINE; HEALTH SERVICES MISUSE; HUMANS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PEER REVIEW, HEALTH CARE; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; RANDOM ALLOCATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84888064960     PISSN: 09269630     EISSN: 18798365     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.3233/978-1-60750-928-8-1112     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (30)

1. Studnicki J, Bradham DD, Marshburn J, Foulis PR, and Straumfjord JV. A feedback system for reducing excessive laboratory tests. Arch Path Lab Med 1993;117:35-9.
2. Pop P, and Winkens RA. A diagnostic centre for general practitioners: results of individual feedback on diagnostic actions. JR Coll Gen Pract 1989;39:507-8.
3. O'Connell DL, Henry D, and Tomlins R. Randomised controlled trial of effect of feedback on general practitioners' prescribing in Australia. BMJ 1999;318:507-11.
4. Mugford M, Banfield P, and O'Hanlon M. Effects of feedback of information on clinical practice: A review. BMJ 1991;303:398-402.
5. Mitchell MW, and Fowkes FGR. Audit reviewed: Does feedback on performance change clinical behaviour? JR Coll Physicians Lond 1985;19(4):251-4.
6. Jorde R, and Nordoy A. Improvement in clinical work through feedback: intervention study. BMJ 1999;318:1738-9.
7. Buntinx F, Knottnerus JA, Crebolder HF, Seegers T, Essed GG, and Schouten H. Does feedback improve the quality of cervical smears? A randomized controlled trial. Br J Gen Pract 1993 ;43(370): 194-8.
8. Grol R, Lawrence M, and van Beurden W. Quality improvement by peer review. Oxford University Press; 1995.
9. Goldman RL. The reliability of peer assessments. A meta-analysis. EvalHealth Pro/1994;17(l):3-21.
10. Smith MA, Atherly AJ, Kane RL, and Pacala JT. Peer review of the quality of care. Reliability and sources of variability for outcome and process assessments. JAMA 1997;278(19): 1573-8.
11. Hayward RA, McMahon LF, and Bernard AM. Evaluating the care of general medicine inpatients: how good is implicit review? Ann Intern Med 1993;118(7):550-6.
12. Friedman CP, and Wyatt JC. Evaluation Methods in Medical Informatics. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1997.
13. Hripcsak G, Kuperman GJ, Friedman C, and Heitjan DF. A reliability study for evaluation extraction from radiology reports. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1999;6(2): 143-50.
14. Goldman RL, and Ciesco E. Improving peer review: alternatives to unstructured judgments by a single reviewer. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 1996;22(11):762-9.
15. Hofer TP, Bernstein SJ, DeMonner S, and Hayward RA. Discussion between reviewers does not improve reliability of peer review of hospital quality. Med Care 2000;38(2): 152-61.
16. Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, Eccles M, and Grimshaw J. Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ 1999;318:527-30.
17. Grol R, Eccles M, Maisonneuve H, and Woolf S. Developing clinical practice guidelines: The European experience. Dis Manage Health Outcomes 1998;4(5):255-66.
18. McDonald CJ. Protocol-based computer reminders, the quality of care and the non-perfectability of man. N Engl J Med 1976;295:1351-5.
19. Winkens RAG, Pop P, Bugter-Maessen AMA, Grol RPTM, Kester ADM, Beusmans GHMI, and Knottnerus JA. Randomised controlled trial of routine individual feedback to improve rationality and reduce numbers of test request. Lancet 1995;345:498-502.
20. Winkens RAG, Pop P, Grol RPTM, Bugter-Maessen AMA, Kester ADM, Beusmans GHMI, and Knottnerus JA. Effects of routine individual feedback over nine years on general practitioners' requests for tests. 5M/1996;312:490.
21. Landis JR, and Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1979;33:159-74.
22. van der Lei J, Musen MA, van der Does E, Man in't Veld AJ, and van Bemmel JH. Comparison of computer-aided and human review of general practitioners' management of hypertension. Lancet 1991;338(8781):1504-8.
23. Zucherman IH, Mulhearn DM, and Metge CJ. Inter-and intrarater reliability of retrospective drug utilization reviewers. J Am Pharm Assoc 1999;39(l):45-9.
24. Owens DK. Use of medical informatics to implement and develop clinical practice guidelines. West J Med 1998; 168 (3): 166-75.
25. Zielstorff RD. Review: Online practice guidelines: Issues, obstacles, and future prospects. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1998;5(3):227-36.
26. Vissers MC, Biert J, van der Linden CJ, and Hasman A. Effects of a supportive protocol processing system (ProtoVIEW) on clinical behaviour of residents in the accident and emergency department. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 1996;49(2): 177-84.
27. van Wijk MAW, Mosseveld M, and van der Lei J. Design of a decision support system fot the test ordering in general practice: choices and decision to make. Methods InfMed 1999;38(4-5):355-61.
28. Schriger DL, Baraff LJ, Buller K, Shendrikar MA, Nagda S, Lin EJ, Mikulich VJ, and Cretin S. Implementation of clinical guidelines via a computer charting system: Effect on the care of febrile children less than three years of age. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2000;7:186-95.
29. Shea S, DuMouchel W, and Bahamonde L. A metaanalysis of 16 randomized controlled trials to evaluate computer-based clinical reminder systems for preventive care in the ambulatory setting. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1996;3(6):399-409.
30. Elson RB, Faughnan JG, and Connelly DP. An industrial process view of information delivery to support clinical decision making: implications for systems design and process measures. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1997;4(4):266-78.