Evolving emergency care standards for asthmatics

N. Fink, Ellen J Mackenzie, G. Gibson

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

The paper suggests a methodology for assessing the process of health care and presents different methods of improving reliability, validity and summarization measures reflecting overall quality of care rendered. The study focused on development of standards for the management of asthma by a sample of 28 clinicians at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. Sample assessed 67 'candidate' standards on a seven point scale denoting absolutely necessary/excellent practice vs. completely unnecessary/poor practice. Thirty-four standards were accepted as clinically significant by the panel and applied to chart reviews of a consecutive series of 357 asthma patient visits during July and August 1975. Compliance rates for each of the standards were calculated. Several different methods of summarization were then presented that involved differential vs. non-differential weighting of standards to reflect clinical significance, summary scores for history and physical examination items received by the asthma patient and summary scores that penalized for non-compliance. It is concluded that the results indicate substantial aspects of this methodology seem to be feasible and useful, but further testing with standards and expert validating groups that differentiate more widely as to clinical significance is needed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationAbstracts of Health Care Management Studies
Volume15
Edition1
StatePublished - 1978

Fingerprint

Emergency Medical Services
Standard of Care
Asthma
Quality of Health Care
Reproducibility of Results
Physical Examination
History
Delivery of Health Care

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Fink, N., Mackenzie, E. J., & Gibson, G. (1978). Evolving emergency care standards for asthmatics. In Abstracts of Health Care Management Studies (1 ed., Vol. 15)

Evolving emergency care standards for asthmatics. / Fink, N.; Mackenzie, Ellen J; Gibson, G.

Abstracts of Health Care Management Studies. Vol. 15 1. ed. 1978.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Fink, N, Mackenzie, EJ & Gibson, G 1978, Evolving emergency care standards for asthmatics. in Abstracts of Health Care Management Studies. 1 edn, vol. 15.
Fink N, Mackenzie EJ, Gibson G. Evolving emergency care standards for asthmatics. In Abstracts of Health Care Management Studies. 1 ed. Vol. 15. 1978
Fink, N. ; Mackenzie, Ellen J ; Gibson, G. / Evolving emergency care standards for asthmatics. Abstracts of Health Care Management Studies. Vol. 15 1. ed. 1978.
@inbook{77c36a9b6f9a449cb5df2bb69bf54371,
title = "Evolving emergency care standards for asthmatics",
abstract = "The paper suggests a methodology for assessing the process of health care and presents different methods of improving reliability, validity and summarization measures reflecting overall quality of care rendered. The study focused on development of standards for the management of asthma by a sample of 28 clinicians at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. Sample assessed 67 'candidate' standards on a seven point scale denoting absolutely necessary/excellent practice vs. completely unnecessary/poor practice. Thirty-four standards were accepted as clinically significant by the panel and applied to chart reviews of a consecutive series of 357 asthma patient visits during July and August 1975. Compliance rates for each of the standards were calculated. Several different methods of summarization were then presented that involved differential vs. non-differential weighting of standards to reflect clinical significance, summary scores for history and physical examination items received by the asthma patient and summary scores that penalized for non-compliance. It is concluded that the results indicate substantial aspects of this methodology seem to be feasible and useful, but further testing with standards and expert validating groups that differentiate more widely as to clinical significance is needed.",
author = "N. Fink and Mackenzie, {Ellen J} and G. Gibson",
year = "1978",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
booktitle = "Abstracts of Health Care Management Studies",
edition = "1",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Evolving emergency care standards for asthmatics

AU - Fink, N.

AU - Mackenzie, Ellen J

AU - Gibson, G.

PY - 1978

Y1 - 1978

N2 - The paper suggests a methodology for assessing the process of health care and presents different methods of improving reliability, validity and summarization measures reflecting overall quality of care rendered. The study focused on development of standards for the management of asthma by a sample of 28 clinicians at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. Sample assessed 67 'candidate' standards on a seven point scale denoting absolutely necessary/excellent practice vs. completely unnecessary/poor practice. Thirty-four standards were accepted as clinically significant by the panel and applied to chart reviews of a consecutive series of 357 asthma patient visits during July and August 1975. Compliance rates for each of the standards were calculated. Several different methods of summarization were then presented that involved differential vs. non-differential weighting of standards to reflect clinical significance, summary scores for history and physical examination items received by the asthma patient and summary scores that penalized for non-compliance. It is concluded that the results indicate substantial aspects of this methodology seem to be feasible and useful, but further testing with standards and expert validating groups that differentiate more widely as to clinical significance is needed.

AB - The paper suggests a methodology for assessing the process of health care and presents different methods of improving reliability, validity and summarization measures reflecting overall quality of care rendered. The study focused on development of standards for the management of asthma by a sample of 28 clinicians at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. Sample assessed 67 'candidate' standards on a seven point scale denoting absolutely necessary/excellent practice vs. completely unnecessary/poor practice. Thirty-four standards were accepted as clinically significant by the panel and applied to chart reviews of a consecutive series of 357 asthma patient visits during July and August 1975. Compliance rates for each of the standards were calculated. Several different methods of summarization were then presented that involved differential vs. non-differential weighting of standards to reflect clinical significance, summary scores for history and physical examination items received by the asthma patient and summary scores that penalized for non-compliance. It is concluded that the results indicate substantial aspects of this methodology seem to be feasible and useful, but further testing with standards and expert validating groups that differentiate more widely as to clinical significance is needed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0018227709&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0018227709&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Chapter

VL - 15

BT - Abstracts of Health Care Management Studies

ER -