PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 824600

Is solving the methodological problems enough? Ambulatory care quality evaluation and the diffusion of innovation.

T Christoffel
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.

Explore related subjects

Ambulatory CareContinuity of Patient CareQuality of Health CareTechnologyUnited StatesJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

T Christoffel. 1976. Is solving the methodological problems enough? Ambulatory care quality evaluation and the diffusion of innovation.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/824600/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2008

The Assessment of Depression Inventory (ADI): an appraisal of validity in an outpatient sample.

In this study we examined the validity of the Assessment of Depression Inventory (ADI) using outpatient participants. The ADI Depression scale (Dep) was compared to three other measures used to assess depression: Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (ZSDS), and Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). Correlations between the ADI and these three measures were significant. An analysis of the discriminant ability of the ADI Dep scale resulted in sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive power, negative predictive power, hit rate, and area under the curve (92.3%) that were supportive of the scale's effectiveness. The ADI Feigning scale (Fg) was compared to the six PAI validity scales. The Fg scale correlated significantly with the PAI Negative Impression Management (NIM) and Positive Impression Management (PIM) scales, and the Malingering (MAL) and Defensive (DEF) indexes. Directionality was as would be predicted. The ADI did not correlate with the two PAI validity scales derived by discriminant analysis function.

Ambulatory Care↗
PubMed2007

How normalised is HIV care in the UK? A survey of current practice and opinion.

OBJECTIVES: The prognosis for individuals infected with HIV has changed dramatically over the past 10 years, with patients living longer and requiring other specialist services. It is apparent that access of other healthcare professionals to clinical information about a patient's HIV care differs between centres in the UK. Lack of awareness of an individual's HIV status may compromise their clinical care. AIM: To establish current practice and identify the views of clinicians caring for patients infected with HIV. METHODS: Lead consultants in all genitourinary medicine departments in the UK were invited to complete a questionnaire regarding use of combined HIV and hospital notes and ability of general practitioners and other hospital specialists to access information about individual patient's HIV care. Clinician's opinions on the "normalisation" of HIV management were also sought. RESULTS: Combined notes (outpatient and inpatient) were used by 12% (16/130) of respondents. The patient's identifying number was used to request blood tests in 86%. Of the respondents, 42% had encountered difficulties in communication that affected delivery of care for an HIV-positive patient. CONCLUSIONS: Centres using combined notes identified a higher frequency of communication with other doctors and specialties, suggesting a higher standard of care. Physicians involved in HIV care should consider combining patients' HIV and hospital notes for improved clinical care.

Ambulatory Care↗