Biomedical subjects

H R Braswell

Publications and source records attributed to H R Braswell.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1979

Validity of medical staff judgments in establishing quality assurance priorities.

The validation of a structured group judgment procedure to establish priorities for quality assurance activities was undertaken in six medical institutions in the United States. Validation focused on the extent to which health improvement could be documented by outcome-based projects focusing on priority topics. Predictive (criterion-related) validity was sought by analyzing five successively more stringent levels of evidence: 1) feasibility of implementing a quality assessment project within the topic areas selected by the prioity procedure; 2) accuracy of identifying health deficiencies or strengths; 3) verification of establishing correctable causes of health deficiencies; 4) capability of effecting significant improvement of health deficiencies; and 5) credibility of evidence that improvement achieved is directly attributable to corrective actions taken. Within the limits of generalizability, predictive validity was documented at every level of analysis. It is recommended that the structured group judgment process used in this study be more thoroughly evaluated and considered for quality assurance planning purposes.

Decision Making↗

PubMed1979

Assessing depression outcomes in group practice clinics.

The application of a protocol for the initial assessment of medical care outcomes of geriatric depression management in four multispecialty group practice clinics is described. The clinical findings of this study are limited, but the protocol for the assessment of depression outcomes was found to be feasible, practical and acceptable in all four clinics. The success of the study has positive implications both for improving management of depressed clinic patients and for adapting this quality assurance approach to other health conditions and care settings.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1978

Priority setting in quality assurance: reliability of staff judgments in medical institutions.

A structured procedure using the judgments of a representative group of local providers for establishing priorities for quality assurance activity in diverse medical institutions was tested for reliability. Two independent matched teams of phy sicians, nurses, administrators, and other staff in eight separate medical facilities generated 320 topics which encompassed areas where quality assurance efforts would have either considerable or little impact in terms of improving health outcomes within reasonable costs. Concordance of judgment between teams in each facility was determined by analyzing the similarity of topics content, the agreement in scaling the health impact of similar topics generated by both teams independently, and the agreement by one team in scaling the health impact of topics generated by the other team. The findings revealed 44 per cent content agreement on topics independently generated, 93 per cent agreement on dichotomous scaling of similar topics, and 87 per cent agreement on five-point scaling of similar topics. Concordance of judgment by one team in scaling the other team's topics was highly significant (p less than .001). Preliminary analysis of topic content and scaling agreement among different facilities indicated low agreement both on the content areas and on the health impact of similar topics. It is concluded that the judgments of local providers in identifying cost-effective quality assurance priorities is highly relaible in the medical institutions studied.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗