PubMed · 8347533
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
R D Ryall. 1993. Setting a standard.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0936-6555(05)80305-x
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Large variations in the quality of cancer care are a matter of concern in the United States. Despite spending over 15% of our GNP on health care, more than any other country in the world, some cancer patients face significant risks of dying from their treatment precisely because of their choice of physician. The Institute of Medicine has reported that variations in the quality of cancer are large, and that low-experienced providers are more likely to provide a lower quality of medical care. Increased pressures to contain costs have led to concern that the quality and outcomes of cancer care may only worsen. One reaction to this situation is a greater reliance on "report cards." In an effort to address both quality and cost issues, providers are looking outside the health care sector for guidance for more acceptable alternatives to report cards, which are often viewed as punitive. The approach that they most often have selected recently is termed continuous quality improvement (CQI) or total quality management (TQM). In this article, we describe the potential benefits and drawbacks of CQI efforts in oncology, review experiences with four different CQI cancer programs, and make recommendations about future CQI efforts.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.