PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 1622351

Concurrent case note screening: failure to demonstrate benefit.

Abstract

In 1991 the third of a series of trials of concurrent case note screening was conducted over a 4 month period in one surgical and one medical unit of a busy metropolitan public teaching hospital in South Australia. The conclusion reached was that there is insufficient evidence of consistent improvement to justify the continuation of this expensive method of quality assurance. Traditional monitoring of performance by consultants, perhaps with the aid of computer-assisted management information, should achieve similar results.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M Barton, M Burr. 1992. Concurrent case note screening: failure to demonstrate benefit.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1622351/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

A multifaceted approach to managed mental health care.

While many HMOs and insurance companies have contracted with outside managed mental health firms to control mental health utilization, ConnectiCare, an IPA Model HMO with nearly 100,000 members, manages its own mental health utilization with a multifaceted approach. How the system has evolved and preliminary results are presented to illustrate how an HMO can manage its own mental health care program while using local providers.

Concurrent Review

Multidisciplinary program for detecting and evaluating adverse drug reactions.

An adverse drug reaction (ADR)-reporting program involving detection of charted ADRs by quality assurance nurses and data collection and causality assessment by staff pharmacists is described. The voluntary ADR-reporting mechanism used in a 900-bed, university-based hospital complex produced less than one ADR report per month. The newly implemented system depends on nurses to detect and report documented ADRs through concurrent chart review. Staff pharmacists are then responsible for follow-up chart review, data collection, and causality assignment based on two published algorithms. An inservice education program designed to increase the awareness and understanding of ADRs was provided to the department of pharmacy and the quality assurance nurses. The clinical staff provides quality assurance through weekly ADR committee meetings. Drug information center personnel complete the causality algorithms by using the data collected by the staff pharmacists. The ADR committee then compares the algorithm results of the two assessors. Discrepancies in scoring are evaluated to determine whether a change in the system is necessary. An FDA report is generated if the staff pharmacist assessor and the drug information center assessor obtain results of "probable" for both algorithms. An ADR-reporting program that relies on quality assurance nurses to detect charted ADRs and on staff pharmacists to evaluate reported ADRs increased the average number of ADRs reported from 0.4 to 20 per month.

Concurrent Review