PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

C H Patterson

Publications and source records attributed to C H Patterson.

12 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1996

Differential modification of activities of the high-affinity and low-affinity insulin receptors of 3T3-L1 fibroblasts by phosphonolipids in vivo.

The low-affinity and high-affinity forms of the insulin receptor respond differently to modifications of cellular phospholipid content in mouse 3T3-L1 fibroblasts in vivo. When cells are cultured with 2-aminoethylphosphonate the resulting phosphonolipid, which has previously been demonstrated to prevent the insulin-induced differentiation of the fibroblasts into adipocytes [J. D. Smith et al., Biochem. Arch. 8, 339-344 (1992)] results in alterations in both the affinity for insulin and receptor number of the low-affinity receptor while leaving the high-affinity receptor unaffected. That this phospholipid modification induces a specific change in the cellular insulin effect is demonstrated by the lack of alteration in the mobilization of GLUT-4 and glucose transport in the lipid modified cells. The results suggest that this specific cellular phospholipid modification will be useful in dissecting the specific functions of the two forms of the mammalian insulin receptor.

3T3 Cells↗
PubMed1995

Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations.

The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations was founded in 1951 as a private, not-for-profit organization that evaluates and accredits hospitals and other healthcare organizations. In 1987, the JCAHO launched its Agenda for Change to create a more modern and sophisticated accreditation process to place primary emphasis on actual performance. Coincident with this new emphasis, a number of task forces were established, including two for infection control standards.

Accreditation↗
PubMed1989

Perceptions and misconceptions regarding the Joint Commission's view of quality monitoring.

The Joint Commission recently has revised its hospital standards for infection control to reflect more accurately current state-of-the-art practices. In addition, the Joint Commission's Agenda for Change initiatives include the development of clinical indicators; one of the topics that will be included in those clinical indicator sets will be infection control. How the hospital chooses to organize itself to conduct the historically required monitoring and evaluation of clinical patient care currently required by the standards of the Joint Commission is at the option of the hospital. How the hospital will organize and collect data specific to infection control indicators yet to be developed by the Joint Commission has not been determined and will not be defined until specific research and development projects are completed. The hospital is expected to have in place infection prevention, surveillance, and control programs; it also is expected to have in place a quality assurance program that focuses not only on solving identified problems but also on the improvement of patient care quality. How the hospitals organize and/or integrate these activities is also at its option. It is expected that qualified professionals will direct and enforce infection prevention, surveillance, and control practices; indicators for infection control can provide data that will help assess the relative success of those practices and activities. The Joint Commission is not developing the capability to judge, on its own part, the actual quality of care provided by an organization seeking accreditation. Rather, the Joint Commission is committed to developing more accurate means to evaluate the structures, processes, and outcomes of diagnosis and treatment activities, as well as their interrelationships. Clinical excellence is supported by quality in the organizational environment and the managerial and leadership contexts within which patient care is delivered. Both clinical and organizational excellence are essential components of quality, and the Joint Commission is convinced that it is appropriate and timely to undertake more direct assessments of both.

Accreditation↗
PubMed1988

Standards of patient care: the Joint Commission focus on nursing quality assurance.

A process is described for qualified nurse administrators to set their own standards of care (as opposed to standards of practice set by professional organizations) in order to enhance and simplify the Joint Commission monitoring and evaluation activities required to measure both the quality and the appropriateness of clinical nursing care that patients receive.

Accreditation↗
PubMed1966

Counseling.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Counseling↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Quality assurance, control, and monitoring. The future role of information technology from the Joint Commission's perspective.

In summary, the Joint Commission's current perspective on "quality assurance" in the 1990s includes three different, but complementary, activities: 1) structure and process triennial reviews (Joint Commission surveys); 2) Case-based reviews conducted by professional review organizations and/or other third parties; and 3) a combination of internal and external data-driven improvement systems. All these systems will work best supported by computers and software programs that foster the manipulation and management of data related to quality of care monitoring systems in addition to those in use today to monitor the hospital's profit and loss position. The Joint Commission's accreditation decision process will continue to be based on surveys of compliance with standards and their key characteristics. Problems related to the organization's performance against the external monitoring systems will not directly impact accreditation status. The Joint Commission will be more interested in how the organization responds to aberrant indicator data and how it conducts problem solving activities. New Joint Commission standards (yet to be developed) will relate to such activity and only then, after standards are written, field tested, and published, could the information generated by the Joint Commission's external indicator monitoring system impact on accreditation status. During a speaking engagement in Florida, a physician on the panel with me from the state's physician monitoring organization shared the following diagnostic label: "Mural Graphic Dyslexia." He defined it as the inability to read the handwriting on the wall. I believe that the handwriting is very clear and can be read very well. Data-driven quality improvement processes are the survival tools of the future.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Accreditation↗