0

The full content of Annals is available to subscribers

Subscribe/Learn More  >
Medicine and Public Policy |

Evaluating the Care of General Medicine Inpatients: How Good Is Implicit Review?

Rodney A. Hayward, MD; Laurence F. McMahon, MD, MPH; and Annette M. Bernard, MD, MS
[+] Article and Author Information

From the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. Requests for Reprints: Dr. Hayward: University of Michigan Medical Center, Division of General Medicine, 3116 Taubman Center, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0376. Acknowledgments: The authors thank Clare Weipert for secretarial assistance; Judith Rosevear for data management; and Drs. Haya Rubin and Avedis Donabedian and Lisa Rubenstein for their advice and insights. Grant Support: In part, by a grant from The John A. Hartford Foundation, Inc.


Copyright ©2004 by the American College of Physicians


Ann Intern Med. 1993;118(7):550-556. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-118-7-199304010-00010
Text Size: A A A

Objective: Peer review often consists of implicit evaluations by physician reviewers of the quality and appropriateness of care. This study evaluated the ability of implicit review to measure reliably various aspects of care on a general medicine inpatient service.

Design: Retrospective review of patients' charts, using structured implicit review, of a stratified random sample of consecutive admissions to a general medicine ward.

Setting: A university teaching hospital.

Patients: Twelve internists were trained in structured implicit review and reviewed 675 patient admissions (with 20% duplicate reviews for a total of 846 reviews).

Results: Although inter-rater reliabilities for assessments of overall quality of care and preventable deaths (κ = 0.5) were adequate for aggregate comparisons (for example, comparing mean ratings on two hospital wards), they were inadequate for reliable evaluations of single patients using one or two reviewers. Reviewers' agreement about most focused quality problems (for example, timeliness of diagnostic evaluation and clinical readiness at time of discharge) and about the appropriateness of hospital ancillary resource use was poor (κ ≤ 0.2). For most focused implicit measures, bias due to specific reviewers who were systematically more harsh or lenient (particularly for evaluation of resource-use appropriateness) accounted for much of the variation in reviewers' assessments, but this was not a substantial problem for the measure of overall quality. Reviewers rarely reported being unable to evaluate the quality of care because of deficiencies in documentation in the patient's chart.

Conclusion: For assessment of overall quality and preventable deaths of general medicine inpatients, implicit review by peers had moderate degrees of reliability, but for most other specific aspects of care, physician reviewers could not agree. Implicit review was particularly unreliable at evaluating the appropriateness of hospital resource use and the patient's readiness for discharge, two areas where this type of review is often used.

Figures

Tables

References

Letters

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Comments

Submit a Comment
Submit a Comment

Summary for Patients

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

Toolkit

Buy Now

to gain full access to the content and tools.

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Advertisement
Related Articles
Related Point of Care
Topic Collections
PubMed Articles

Buy Now

to gain full access to the content and tools.

Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Forgot your password?
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.
(Required)
(Required)