Revalidation for general practitioners: randomised comparison of two revalidation models.
(57/462)
OBJECTIVE: To compare two models of revalidation for general practitioners. DESIGN: Randomised comparison of two revalidation models. SETTING: Primary care in Tayside, Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 66 Tayside general practitioners (principals and non-principals), 53 of whom completed the revalidation folders. Interventions Two revalidation models: a minimum criterion based model with revalidation as the primary purpose, and an educational outcome model with emphasis on combining revalidation with continuing professional development. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility and acceptability of each approach and effect on the doctor's continuing professional development. The ability to make a summative judgment on completed models and whether either model would allow patient groups to have confidence in the revalidation process. RESULTS: The criterion model was preferred by general practitioners. For both models doctors reported making changes to their practice and felt a positive effect on their continuing professional development. Summative assessment of the folders showed reasonable inter-rater reliability. CONCLUSIONS: The criterion model provides a practical and acceptable model for general practitioners to use when preparing for revalidation. (+info)
Health plan policies and programs for colorectal cancer screening: a national profile.
(58/462)
BACKGROUND: A consensus has emerged that average-risk adults 50 years of age or older should be screened for colorectal cancer (CRC). OBJECTIVES: To describe health plans' coverage policies, guidelines, and organized programs to promote CRC screening. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Review of data from the National Cancer Institute Survey of Colorectal Cancer Screening Practices, administered to a national sample of health plans in 1999-2000. The survey inquired about coverage policies for fecal occult blood testing, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema; the nature of any guidelines the plan had issued to its providers on CRC screening; and systems for recruiting patients into screening and for tracking and reporting the results of screening and follow-up procedures. RESULTS: Of 346 eligible health plans, 180 (52%) responded. Nearly all health plans covered at least 1 CRC screening modality. Plans were most likely to cover fecal occult blood testing (97%) and least likely to cover colonoscopy (57%). Sixty-five percent had issued guidelines on CRC screening to providers. One quarter had a mechanism to remind patients that they are due for CRC screening, but fewer had systems for prompting providers, contacting noncompliant patients, or tracking completion of screening. CONCLUSIONS: Health plans have the ability to provide organizational infrastructure for a broad range of preventive services to well-defined populations. However, few health plans had all 3 essential CRC screening delivery components--coverage, guidelines, and tracking systems--in place in 1999-2000. (+info)
TRICARE Program; inclusion of anesthesiologist assistants as authorized providers; coverage of cardiac rehabilitation in freestanding cardiac rehabilitation facilities. Final rule.
(59/462)
This final rule establishes a new category of provider as an authorized TRICARE provider and it increases the settings where cardiac rehabilitation can be covered as a TRICARE benefit. It recognizes anesthesiologist assistants (AAs) as authorized providers under certain circumstances. It also authorizes cardiac rehabilitation services, which are already a covered TRICARE benefit when provided by hospitals, to be provided in freestanding cardiac rehabilitation facilities. (+info)
Comparison of health care professionals' self-assessments of standards of care and patients' opinions on the care they received in hospital: observational study.
(60/462)
OBJECTIVES: To compare the views of healthcare professionals and patients regarding compliance with standards of care concerning patient information. DESIGN: Self-rated questionnaire survey. SETTING: Nine wards in short stay French hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 939 patients and 359 healthcare professionals (physicians, nurses, assistants and other professionals). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Patients' and healthcare professionals' views of compliance with 20 standards of patient care described in the French accreditation manual. Comparison of the rank order of the standards within the two samples. RESULTS: The response rate was 61.5% in the patient group and 85.8% in the healthcare professionals. The rank orders for the 20 items were similar in both groups (Spearman rank order correlation 0.6, p = 0.004). The two items ranked highest by healthcare professionals ("consent request for a surgical procedure" and "the doctors ask the visitors to leave the room before examining a patient") were also the two ranked highest by the patients. Three items were ranked low by both groups: "consent request for students to be present", "health education given to patients", and "possibility to express satisfaction during discharge". Patients were more satisfied with their pain management than were healthcare providers. Professionals were more satisfied with the social services than the patients. CONCLUSION: There are both similarities and differences between patients' and healthcare professionals' views of care. Accurate assessments of quality performed during the accreditation procedure require that both patients' and professionals' views be taken into account. (+info)
A cigarette manufacturer and a managed care company collaborate to censor health information targeted at employees.
(61/462)
A review of internal tobacco company documents showed that the tobacco company Philip Morris and the insurance company CIGNA collaborated to censor accurate information on the harm of smoking and on environmental tobacco smoke exposure from CIGNA health newsletters sent to employees of Philip Morris and its affiliates. From 1996 to 1998, 5 of the 8 CIGNA newsletters discussed in the internal tobacco documents were censored.We recommend that accrediting bodies mandate that health plans not censor employee-directed health information at the request of employers. (+info)
The accreditation of ultrasound practices: impact on compliance with minimum performance guidelines.
(62/462)
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM) accreditation program in improving compliance with standards and guidelines for the performance of obstetric and gynecologic ultrasound examinations. METHODS: Scores of case studies of accreditation applications were compared with their respective scores at the time of reaccreditation 3 years later. To account for the element of time, scores of applications that recently completed first-time accreditation were also compared as a control group. RESULTS: Individual obstetric case studies, as well as the average of all obstetric and gynecologic case studies, showed highly significant improvement with the reaccreditation application when compared with the initial accreditation application 3 years earlier (all P <.001). The proportion of practices successfully meeting obstetric and gynecologic AIUM accreditation requirements improved significantly with reaccreditation (obstetric, 57.3% for accreditation compared with 86.6% for reaccreditation; gynecologic, 60% for accreditation compared with 91.9% for reaccreditation; P <.001). Furthermore, reaccreditation scores were significantly higher than scores of recent first-time applications for obstetric case studies as well as scores of the average of obstetric and gynecologic case studies (all P <.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms that practices that sought and received ultrasound accreditation were able to improve the scores of case studies and compliance with published minimum standards and guidelines for the performance of obstetric and gynecologic ultrasound examinations when reevaluated 3 years after the initial application scores. This improvement should translate into an enhancement of the quality of ultrasound practice. (+info)
The quality assurance of proficiency testing programs for animal disease diagnostic laboratories.
(63/462)
Laboratory data credibility has 3 major components: 1) valid methods, 2) proficiency testing (PT) to verify that the analyst can conduct the method and to compare results of other laboratories using the same method, and 3) third-party accreditation to verify that the laboratory is competent to conduct testing and that the method validation has been done within the environment and requirements of an effective quality-management system. Participation in external PT programs by a laboratory is strongly recommended in International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission International Standard 17025. Most laboratory accreditation bodies using this standard require that laboratories participate in such programs to be accredited. Internal PT is also recommended for each analyst. Benchmarking, or comparison between laboratories using PT or reference materials, is also recommended as part of the validation and evaluation of test methods. These requirements emphasize the need for proficiency test providers to demonstrate their competence. Requirements for competence are documented in national and international standards and guidelines, and accreditation is available for providers. This article discusses the activities and the components that are necessary and recommended for PT projects and programs for animal disease diagnostic testing. These are based on the requirements of the national and international standards, which address this subject, and on the experience of the author. The accreditation of external PT programs is also discussed. Organizations that accredit PT providers or that provide PT programs are listed. Existing references, guidelines, and standards that are relevant to PT in veterinary diagnostic laboratories are discussed. (+info)
Aim for excellence: integrating accreditation standards into the continuous quality improvement framework.
(64/462)
The Ottawa Hospital has developed a simple template incorporating specific key Canadian Council on Health Services Accreditation criteria that will allow clinical teams to annually self-assess their activities against the accreditation standards. (+info)