PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 7671752

[Quality assurance from the theoretical viewpoint].

Abstract

The process of quality assurance is related to all measures and actions used to achieve the required quality. There is agreement about the aim and benefit of quality assurance, but the appropriate way is a matter of discussion. This paper deals from a theoretical viewpoint with basic problems of quality assurance that have not been evaluated adequately so far: a) criteria for measuring quality, b) measuring quality with adjustment for case-mix and c) evaluation of the effects of quality assurance. During the last years tools and study designs have been developed, which could contribute to the solution of these problems by a more sensible analysis, more complete and quality-controlled data and more useful evaluation studies. Further improvements in external quality assurance in surgery are to be expected, if these aspects are taken into consideration.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C Ohmann. 1995. [Quality assurance from the theoretical viewpoint].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7671752/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Reliability of diagnoses coding with ICD-10.

OBJECTIVE: Reliability of diagnoses coding is essential for the use of routine data in a national health care system. The present investigation compares reliability of diagnoses coding with ICD-10 between three groups of coding subjects. METHOD: One hundred and eighteen students coded 15 diagnoses lists, 27 medical managers from hospitals 34 discharge letters, and 13 coding specialists 12 discharge letters. Agreement in principal diagnosis was assessed using Cohen's Kappa and the fraction of coincidences over the number of pairs, agreement for the full set of diagnoses with a previously developed measure p(om). RESULTS: Kappa values were fair (managers) or moderate (coders) for terminal codes with 0.27 and 0.42 (agreement 29.2% versus 46.8%), substantial for the chapter level with 0.71 and 0.72 (agreement 78.3% versus 80.8%). p(om) was lower for the full set of diagnoses than for principal diagnoses, for example in case of managers with 0.21 versus 0.29 for terminal codes. Best results were achieved by students coding diagnoses lists. In summary, the results are remarkably lower than in earlier publications. CONCLUSION: The refinement of the ICD-10 accompanied by innumerous coding rules has established a complex environment that leads to significant uncertainties even for experts. Use of coded data for quality management, health care financing, and health care policy requires a remarkable simplification of ICD-10 to receive a valid image of health care reality.

Diagnosis-Related Groups↗