Clinical peer review - Knowledge (XXG)

208:

events, near misses and hazardous conditions, identifying opportunities for improvement in the review process (as opposed to casting blame), providing timely clinical performance feedback, recognizing clinical excellence, and establishing effective program governance. as additional multivariate predictors of the impact of clinical peer review on quality and safety, medical staff perceptions of the program, and clinician engagement in quality and safety initiatives. The online supplement to the report includes a program self assessment tool which is also available as a free online utility. Despite a persistently high annual rate of major program change, about two-thirds of programs still have significant opportunity for improvement. It is argued that the outmoded QA model perpetuates a culture of blame that is toxic to efforts to advance quality and high reliability among both physicians and nurses.

238:(1) The increasing occurrence of medical malpractice and the need to improve the quality of medical care have become nationwide problems that warrant greater efforts than those that can be undertaken by any individual State. (2) There is a national need to restrict the ability of incompetent physicians to move from State to State without disclosure or discovery of the physician's previous damaging or incompetent performance. (3) This nationwide problem can be remedied through effective professional peer review. (4) The threat of private money damage liability under Federal laws, including treble damage liability under Federal antitrust law, unreasonably discourages physicians from participating in effective professional peer review. (5) There is an overriding national need to provide incentive and protection for physicians engaging in effective professional peer review. 282:

The PSRO model was not considered to be effective and was replaced in 1982 by a further act of Congress which established Utilization and Quality Control Peer Review Organizations (PROs). This model too was fraught with limitations. Studies of its methods called into question its reliability and validity for peer review. A survey of Iowa state medical society members in the early 90s regarding perceptions of the PRO program illustrated the potential harm of a poorly designed program. Furthermore, the Institute of Medicine issued a report identifying the system of care as the root cause of many instances of poor quality. As a result, in the mid-90s, the PROs changed their focus and methods; and began to de-emphasize their role as agents of external peer review. The change was completed by 2002, when they were renamed Quality Improvement Organizations.

105:

and implementing the standards of nursing practice. Likewise, each nurse must participate with other nurses in the decision-making process for evaluating nursing care…Peer review implies that the nursing care delivered by a group of nurses or an individual nurse is evaluated by individuals of the same rank or standing according to established standards of practice…. Peer review is an organized effort whereby practicing professionals review the quality and appropriateness of services ordered or performed by their professional peers. Peer review in nursing is the process by which practicing registered nurses systematically access, monitor, and make judgments about the quality of nursing care provided by peers as measured against professional standards of practice.

192:

were facing escalating malpractice insurance costs. In response to these combined pressures, they began to adopt "generic screens" for potential substandard care. These screens were originally developed to evaluate the feasibility of a no-fault medical malpractice insurance plan and were never validated as a tool to improve quality of care. Despite warnings from the developers, their use became widespread. In the process, a QA model for peer review evolved with a narrow focus on the question of whether or not the standard of care had been met. It has persisted despite the many criticisms of its methods and effectiveness. Today, its methods are increasingly recognized to be outdated and incongruent with the

184:

promoted by the American College of Surgeons (ACS) following WWI. The Joint Commission (on Accreditation of Hospitals) followed the ACS in this role from 1952. Medicare legislation, enacted in 1964, boosted the stature and influence of the Joint Commission because the conditions for hospital participation required a credible medical care review program and the regulations stipulated that Joint Commission accreditation would guarantee payment eligibility. What was once a sporadic process, became hardwired in most hospitals following the medical audit model. The widespread creation of new programs was hampered, however, by limitations in the available process models, tools, training and implementation support.

265:

settings through reporting to Patient Safety Organizations (PSO). This was intended to include peer review. The final rule promulgated by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality in 2008 at 42 CFR Part 3 also includes protections against reprisals for good-faith reporters of adverse events, near misses and hazardous conditions. Several Florida health systems subsequently formed PSOs in expectation of using federal statutory protections to maintain the confidentiality of peer review activity that would have been exposed under Amendment 7. The subsequent legal challenges to this strategy go beyond the scope of this article.

126:

and (c) practice advancement. Each area of contemporary peer review has an organizational, unit, and individual focus. The following six peer review practice principles stem from and are grounded in the 1988 ANA Guidelines and may help to assure an evidence-based and consistent approach to peer review: 1. A peer is someone of the same rank. 2. Peer review is practice focused. 3. Feedback is timely, routine and a continuous expectation. 4. Peer review fosters a continuous learning culture of patient safety and best practice. 5. Feedback is not anonymous. 6. Feedback incorporates the developmental stage of the nurse.

134:

contribution to the organization's success. In contrast, professional peer review is conducted within the professional practice model and is not a managerial accountability. Peer evaluation is the process of getting feedback on one's specific role competencies or "at work" behaviors from people that one works within the department and from other departments. "Colleague evaluation" is a more appropriate term than "peer evaluation" as this is not a form of professional peer review.

67:(AMA) to refer not only to the process of improving quality and safety in health care organizations, but also to process by which adverse actions involving clinical privileges or professional society membership may be pursued. In addition, peer review methods are frequently used by state medical boards with respect to licensing decisions and complaint investigation. They are also used by insurance companies with respect to credentialing and utilization management processes. 200:

requesting this service by 15% of participating hospitals, yet recommendations for improved peer review process were made to 60%. A 2007 study of peer review in US hospitals found wide variation in practice. The more effective programs had more features consistent with quality improvement principles. There were substantial opportunities for program improvement. The implication was that a new QI model for peer review seems to be evolving.

114:

process designed to improve practice and performance for all RNs for at least 2 years. The literature on nursing peer review is more limited than that which has been developed for physician peer review, and has focused more on annual performance appraisal than on case review. No aggregate studies of clinical nursing peer review practices have been published. Nevertheless, more sophisticated studies have been reported.

110:

and maintaining professional autonomy. American Nurses Association guidelines define peer review as the process by which practitioners of the same rank, profession, or setting critically appraise each other's work performance against established standards. The professionals who are best acquainted with the requirements and demands of the role are the givers and receivers of the review.

350:

peer review are also less able to find work when they move to another state, as Roland Chalifoux did. Moreover, neither opponents or supporters of the NPDB can be completely satisfied, as Chalifoux' case shows that just as physicians who were unjustly accused may be deprived of work in this way, those who have erred might still find work in other states.

43:

vicarious malpractice liability and meet regulatory requirements. In the US, these include accreditation, licensure and Medicare participation. Peer review also supports the other processes that healthcare organizations have in place to assure that physicians are competent and practice within the boundaries of professionally accepted norms.

84:), "tissue committees, governing bodies or committees including medical staff committees of a health care facility...or any other medical group in connection with bona fide medical research, quality assurance, utilization review, credentialing, education, training, supervision or discipline of physicians or other health care providers." 222:

whether or not the physician conducting the review must be in active practice. The nature of that protection varies widely. For example, Texas is generally considered to have fairly robust protections, whereas Florida protections were undermined by a constitutional amendment that exposed peer review data to discovery.

256:

issues of global incompetence, but the problem may be focal, not global. Thus, the NPDB has been criticized for having the unintended consequence of having adverse economic impact on providers who were reported regardless of the magnitude of the issue. Even so, gross under-reporting of adverse actions remains an issue.

231:

belief that it will advance healthcare quality based on facts obtained through reasonable efforts with due process and fairness to the involved physician. When peer review leads to an action to limit or revoke clinical privileges, the physician is entitled to both a fair hearing and the right of appeal.

281:

Mandated external peer review has not played an enduring role in the US, but was tested back in the 70s. A 1972 amendment to the Social Security Act established Professional Standards Review Organizations (PSRO) with a view to controlling escalating Medicare costs through physician-organized review.

203:

While it is premature to judge the potential effectiveness of this model, a 2009 study confirmed these findings in a separate sampling of hospitals. It also showed that important differences among programs predict a meaningful portion of the variation on 32 objective measures of patient care quality

122:

violate the peer review guidelines set forth 1988 by the ANA 1988. The most frequent violation is the performance of direct care peer review by managers. One of the reasons for the confusion is that the ANA guidelines for peer review had been out of print prior to being reprinted and updated in 2011.

349:

Defenders of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act state that the National Practitioner Data Bank protects patients by helping preventing errant physicians who have lost their privileges in one state from traveling to practice in another state. Physicians who allege they have been affected by sham

315:

standards, but state medical boards are not bound by such timely peer review and occasionally litigate cases for more than five years. Abuse is also referred to as "malicious peer review" by those who consider it endemic, and they allege that the creation of the National Practitioner Data Bank under

251:

HCQIA enabled the creation of a National Practitioner Data Bank and required hospitals, state medical boards and other health care entities who engage in formal peer review activities to report all disciplinary actions that affect clinical privileges for more than 30 days. This includes incidents in

109:

In Nursing, as in other professions, peer review applies professional control to practice, and is used by professionals to hold themselves accountable for their services to the public and the organization. Peer review plays a role in affecting the quality of outcomes, fostering practice development,

277:

A 2007 study showed that the vast majority of physician peer review is done "in house": 87% of US hospitals send less than 1% of their peer review cases to external agencies. The external review process is generally reserved for cases requiring special expertise for evaluation or for situations in

133:

Confusion exists about the differences between the Professional Peer Review process, the Annual Performance Review (APR) and the role of peer evaluation. The APR is a managerial human resource function performed with direct reports, and is aimed at defining, aligning and recognizing each employee's

117:

Nursing professionals have historically been less likely to participate or be subject to peer review. This is changing, as is the previously limited extensiveness (for example, no aggregate studies of clinical nursing peer review practices had been published as of 2010) of the literature on nursing

113:

Nursing peer review appears to have gained momentum as a result of growth of hospital participation in the American Nursing Association's Magnet Program. Even so, less than 7% of U.S. hospitals have qualified. Magnet hospitals must have at least 2 years of experience with a peer review evaluation

104:

The American Nurses Association believes nurses bare primary responsibility and accountability for the quality of nursing care their clients receive. Standards of nursing practice provide a means for measuring the quality of nursing care a client receives. Each nurse is responsible for interpreting

91:

Case reviews are typically conducted by individual reviewers, but in nearly 70% of hospitals, most reviews are presented and discussed in a committee prior to final decision-making. Nurses now participate on physician review committees in the majority of programs. This extends the trend of the past

303:

for personal or other non-medical reasons. State medical boards have withheld medical records from court to frame innocent physicians as negligent. Another type of review similar to sham peer review is "incompetent peer review," in which the reviewers are unable to accurately assess the quality of

199:

There is good evidence that contemporary peer review process can be further improved. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has offered a Voluntary Review of Quality of Care Program for more than 2 decades. Perceived issues with the adequacy of peer review were an explicit reason for

191:

In the US, however, the lack of perceived effectiveness of medical audit led to revisions of Joint Commission standards in 1980. Those modified standards dispensed with the audit requirement and called for an organized system of Quality Assurance (QA). About the same time, hospital and physicians

172:. His work, as well as later Arabic medical manuals, states that a visiting physician must always make duplicate notes of a patient's condition on every visit. When the patient was cured or had died, the notes of the physician were examined by a local medical council of other physicians, who would 125:

The early ANA Peer Review Guidelines (1988) and Code of Ethics for Nurses (2001) focus on maintaining standards of nursing practice and upgrading nursing care in three contemporary focus areas for peer review. The three dimensions of peer review are: (a) quality and safety, (b) role actualization,

42:

Today, clinical peer review is most commonly done in hospitals, but may also occur in other practice settings including surgical centers and large group practices. The primary purpose of peer review is to improve the quality and safety of care. Secondarily, it serves to reduce the organization's

255:

The HCQIA (§ 11135) requires hospitals to query the NPDB in their initial credentialing and bi-annual provider re-credentialing processes. Structurally, this process fulfills the congressional intention of restricting movement of incompetent physicians. Disciplinary actions may be a red flag for

230:

US federal law generally trumps state law. The federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act ("HCQIA"), 42 U.S.C. § 11112, enacted in 1986, sets standards that professional review actions must meet in order to receive protection under the Act. It requires that the action be taken in the reasonable

75:

In US hospital settings, clinical peer review encompasses a wide variety of activities, whose scope varies across institutions. Virtually all programs perform retrospective medical record review (aka, case review) of the quality of care. Most also include Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation

264:

The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 ("Patient Safety Act"), Public Law 109–41, USC 299b-21-b-26 amended title IX of the Public Health Service Act to create a general framework to support and protect voluntary initiatives to improve quality and patient safety in all healthcare

87:

Medical staffs generally rely on generic screens for adverse events to identify cases for peer review, even though that might not be the most efficient or effective method. These are generally applied through administrative data analysis, but referrals for peer review are frequently made by risk

331:

conducted an investigation of medical peer review in 2007 and concluded that while it is easy to allege misconduct, proven cases of malicious peer review are rare. Parenthetically, it is difficult to prove wrongdoing on behalf of a review committee that can use their clinical and administrative

221:

In the US, peer review activity is generally protected under state statutes. The protection may include confidentiality of the review process and protection to reviewers and institutions for good faith efforts to improve quality and safety through review activity. Such statutes may also specify

121:

Mostly what is mistakenly referred to as "peer review" in clinical practice is really a form of the annual performance evaluation. The annual performance review is a managerial process and does not meet the definition or outcomes needed related to peer review. Other organizational practices may

242:

From the time of the HCQIA, there has been good alignment between regulatory and accrediting bodies with respect to due process requirements for physician disciplinary actions. These formalities apply primarily to questions of competence (credentialing and privileging) rather than performance

207:

The 2015-16 study refined QI model identifying 20 features that distinguish the most effective programs. These include among other factors: aiming first and foremost at improving quality, standardizing review process, maintaining high quality of case review, promoting self-reporting of adverse

187:

Medical audit is a focused study of the process and/or outcomes of care for a specified patient cohort using pre-defined criteria. Audits are typically organized around a diagnosis, procedure or clinical situation. It remains the predominant mode of peer review in Europe and other countries.

79:

Routine clinical peer review activity (performance assessment) is typically organized separately from the credentialing/privileging process (competence assessment), but the results of peer review inform those decisions. From a legal and regulatory perspective, however, the line is blurred. The

183:

In the 1900s, peer review methods evolved in relation to the pioneering work of Codman's End Result System and Ponton's concept of Medical Audit. Lembcke, himself a major contributor to audit methodology, in reviewing this history, notes the pre-emptive influence of hospital standardization

273:

In the US, following enactment of the HCQIA, executives from various national medical associations and health care organizations formed the non-profit American Medical Foundation for Peer Review and Education to provide independent assessment of medical care.

92:

decade for adoption of multi-specialty representation in the direction of multi-disciplinary peer review. Some of these committees now routinely assess nursing care during the case review process and may even directly address all improvement opportunities.

278:

which the independent opinion of an outside reviewer would be helpful. The process is significantly more costly than in-house review, since the majority of hospital review is done as a voluntary contribution of the medical staff.

2290:

California law allows "aggrieved physicians the opportunity to prove that the peer review to which they were subject was in fact carried out for improper purposes, i.e., for purposes unrelated to assuring quality care or patient

1314:

van Herk R, Klazinga NS, Schepers RMJ, Casparie (2001). "threat or opportunity for the medical profession. A comparative study of medical audit among specialists in general hospitals in the Netherlands and England, 1970–1999".

2481:

Arnold MS (2000). ""Employment: Physician Not Protected From Termination For Advocating Medically Appropriate Health Care"—Khajavi v. Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group, 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 627 (Cal. App. 3d 2000)".

339:

framed its statutes so as to allow that a peer review can be found in court to have been improper due to bad faith or malice, in which case the peer reviewers' immunities from civil liability "fall by the wayside".

129:

Written and standardized operating procedures for peer review also need development and adoption by the direct care staff and incorporation into the professional practice model (shared governance) bylaws.

860:

Pearson, Marjorie L.; Lee, Jan L.; Chang, Betty L.; Elliott, Marc; Kahn, Katherine L.; Rubenstein, Lisa V. (November 2000). "Structured implicit review: a new method for monitoring nursing care quality".

30:

is the process by which health care professionals, including those in nursing and pharmacy, evaluate each other's clinical performance. A discipline-specific process may be referenced accordingly (e.g.,

59:

process used to evaluate health care research grant applications, and, also, from the process by which clinical teaching might be evaluated. All these forms of peer review are confounded in the term

307:

Controversy exists over whether medical peer review has been used as a competitive weapon in turf wars among physicians, hospitals, HMOs, and other entities and whether it is used in retaliation for

76:(OPPE) and Focused Professional Practice Evaluation (FPPE) required by the Joint Commission since 2007. Many also include the management of disruptive behavior (see ) and physician health programs. 88:

managers, nurses and medical staff. The median annual review volume is 1–2% of hospital inpatient admissions. Thus, case review may be the dominant form of adverse event analysis in US hospitals.

2824: 343:

Dishonesty by healthcare institutions is well-described in the literature and there is no incentive for those that lie to the public about patient care to be honest with a peer review committee.

176:

the practicing physician's notes to decide whether his or her performance met the required standards of medical care. If their reviews were negative, the practicing physician could face a

1922:

Rubin, HR; Rogers, WH; Kahn, KL; Rubenstein, LV; Brook, RH (1992). "Watching the doctor watchers: how well do peer review organization methods detect hospital quality of care problems?".

1730: 1984: 346:

Incidents of alleged sham peer review are numerous and include cases such as Khajavi v. Feather River Anesthesiology Medical Group, Mileikowsky v. Tenet, and Roland Chalifoux.

1408: 943:

Haag-Heitman, B. & George, V. (2010). Guide for Establishing Shared Governance: A Starter's Tool Kit. Sliver Spring. MD: American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC)

504: 2063: 1841: 1350: 1537:

Lichtmacher A. Quality assessment tools: ACOG Voluntary Review of Quality Program, peer review reporting system. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2008;35(1):147–162.

252:

which a provider voluntarily resigns privileges while under investigation. An entity that fails to report as required may lose HCQIA protections for three years.

2719: 2612: 702: 1855: 814:

Hitchings, Kim S.; Davies-Hathen, Nancy; Capuano, Terry Ann; Morgan, Georgiann; Bendekovits, Rita (2008). "Peer case review sharpens event analysis".

2005: 1712: 2819: 996:"Implementation of a peer review process to improve documentation consistency of care process indicators in the EMR in a primary care setting" 2881: 2840: 602: 2798: 2273: 2871: 317: 934:

Haag-Heitman, B. & George, V. (2011). Peer Review In Nursing: Principles for Successful Practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett

100:

The American Nurses Association published the first definition of nursing peer review in 1988. It includes the following statements:

2712: 2465: 2256: 584: 2524: 2932: 2140: 1267:"Does telling people what they have been doing change what they do? A systematic review of the effects of audit and feedback" 512: 1682: 1669: 2876: 627: 1655: 1078:

Ajlouni KM, Al-Khalidi U (1997). "Medical records, patients outcome, and peer review in eleventh-century Arab medicine".

2922: 2705: 644:

Edwards, M. T. (2013). "A longitudinal study of clinical peer review's impact on quality and safety in U.S. Hospitals".

336: 328: 243:(routine clinical peer review). It would be most unusual to find a hospital whose medical staff bylaws did not conform. 64: 17: 1949:

Roth, RR; Porter, PJ; Bisbey, GR; May, CR (1993). "The attitudes of family physicians toward the peer review process".

2912: 2845: 417: 2578:

Mitchell M, "Former Texas neurosurgeon granted licenses in West Virginia," Fort Worth Star-Telegram (TX), 7 July 2005

2525:"Health Policy in the Courts – California Medical Association's participation in Amicus Curiae Briefs – January 2007" 1409:"Toward Clinical Excellence: An Introduction to Clinical Audit, Peer Review and Other Clinical Practice Improvements" 730:

Davis, Karen K.; Capozzoli, Joe; Parks, Joyce (2009). "Implementing peer review: guidelines for managers and staff".

2620: 2886: 2850: 2778: 706: 603:"Commission. Behaviors that Undermine a Culture of Safety. Sentinel Event Alert 40 (2008). (last accessed 1/30/19)" 913: 2907: 487: 321: 1694: 285:

In contrast, external peer review has been used by German hospitals to lower their standardized mortality rate

2793: 2788: 2421:

Bloche, M. Gregg (17 March 2016). "Scandal as a Sentinel Event — Recognizing Hidden Cost–Quality Trade-offs".

320:(HCQIA) facilitates such abuse, creating a 'third-rail' or a 'first-strike' mentality by granting significant 1265:

Jamtvedt, Gro; Young, Jane M.; Kristoffersen, Doris T.; O'Brien, Mary Ann; Oxman, Andrew D. (December 2006).

2927: 2742: 2566:

Horvit M and Jarviss J, "Board revokes doctor's license," Fort Worth Star-Telegram (TX), 12 June 2004, p.1B

1366:"Using report cards and dashboards to drive quality improvement: lessons learnt and lessons still to learn" 776:

Rout, Amelia; Roberts, Paula (February 2008). "Peer review in nursing and midwifery: a literature review".

2937: 2814: 2668:"Physicians Policing Physicians: the Development of Medical Staff Peer Review Law at California Hospitals" 545:"In pursuit of quality and safety: an 8-year study of clinical peer review best practices in US hospitals" 364: 2163:"CHAGANTI v. MISSOURI BOARD OF REGISTRATION FOR HEALING ARTS, No. WD 77746 (Mo. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2015)" 2057: 2002: 1835: 1344: 80:

definition of a peer review body can be broad, including not only individuals but also (for example, in

2917: 2498: 359: 2162: 204:

and safety. These findings were extended by cohort follow-up studies conducted in 2011 and 2015–16.

2783: 2728: 2188:""Inappropriate Peer Review. Report of the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association."" 2118: 311:. Many medical staff laws specify guidelines for the timeliness of peer review, in compliance with 193: 151: 1802:"Hospital peer review and the National Practitioner Data Bank: clinical privileges action reports" 2855: 2684:"The Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 and Physician Peer Reviews: Success or Failure?" 2361: 2301:

Bakaeen, Faisal G.; Blaustein, Alvin; Kibbe, Melina R. (6 August 2014). "Health Care at the VA".

2226: 1623: 1576: 1463: 1198: 894: 878: 839: 755: 669: 442: 2752: 2747: 2461: 2438: 2403: 2353: 2318: 2252: 2218: 2100: 2045: 1966: 1823: 1782: 1615: 1568: 1501: 1455: 1390: 1332: 1296: 1247: 1190: 1152: 1095: 1060: 1025: 976: 886: 831: 793: 747: 661: 566: 469: 434: 180:

from a maltreated patient. Such practices are known to have continued into the 11th century.

2380: 2285: 606: 2667: 2654: 2430: 2395: 2345: 2310: 2210: 2090: 2035: 1958: 1931: 1813: 1774: 1607: 1560: 1493: 1447: 1426: 1380: 1324: 1286: 1278: 1237: 1229: 1182: 1144: 1087: 1052: 1015: 1007: 966: 870: 823: 785: 739: 653: 556: 430: 426: 294: 2187: 299:

Sham peer review is a name given to the abuse of a medical peer review process to attack a

2591: 2336:

Holmes, D (16 February 2013). "Mid Staffordshire scandal highlights NHS cultural crisis".

2009: 1425:

Sanazaro PJ, Mills DH. A critique of the use of generic screening in quality assessment.

1365: 2683: 1186: 1020: 995: 2768: 2095: 1291: 1266: 1242: 1217: 827: 308: 155: 2349: 1778: 1497: 1328: 1056: 387: 55:

that medical journals use to evaluate the merits of a scientific manuscript, from the

2901: 2531: 1935: 1148: 971: 954: 874: 789: 689:

American Nurses Association. (1988). Peer review in nursing practice. Kansas City, MO

657: 2230: 1627: 1580: 1467: 898: 843: 673: 446: 415:

Dans, Peter E. (1 April 1993). "Clinical peer review: burnishing a tarnished icon".

2365: 1202: 759: 2599: 196:(QI) principles that have been increasingly embraced by healthcare organizations. 743: 2141:"Mishler v. Nevada State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 896 F.2d 408 (9th Cir. 1990)" 1909: 1642:"Clinical Peer Review Program Self-Assessment Inventory | QA2QI Consulting" 161: 56: 52: 1962: 1484:

Berwick DM (1990). "Peer review and quality management: are they compatible?".

1451: 1091: 1011: 1385: 1233: 1112:

Codman EA. A Study in Hospital Efficiency. Boston, MA: T Todd Company; 1917.

2645:

Goldstein H. (2006). "Appraising the performance of performance appraisals".

2629: 2078: 1641: 1611: 1596:"The Objective Impact of Clinical Peer Review on Hospital Quality and Safety" 1564: 1282: 2040: 2023: 561: 544: 300: 142:

There is limited published information about peer review among pharmacists.

2442: 2407: 2357: 2322: 2314: 2222: 2119:"Mishler v. State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 849 P.2d 291, 109 Nev. 287 (1993)" 2104: 2049: 1827: 1818: 1801: 1786: 1619: 1572: 1459: 1438:

Goldman RL (1994). "The reliability of peer assessments: A meta-analysis".

1394: 1336: 1300: 1099: 1064: 1029: 980: 890: 835: 797: 751: 665: 570: 473: 1970: 1505: 1251: 1194: 1156: 438: 234:

Congress explicitly stated the rationale for this legislation as follows:

2434: 882: 177: 2697: 2399: 2214: 2201:

Deming, W (1 June 2008). "Clinical peer review: a plea for fairness".

1747: 324:

from liability to doctors and others who participate in peer reviews.

2658: 2456:

Titcombe, James (November 30, 2016). Anderson-Wallace, Murray (ed.).

1891: 1173:

Legge D (1981). "Peer review in the USA: an historical perspective".

703:"Growth of the Program – American Nurses Credentialing Center – ANCC" 173: 81: 2381:"Scandals in health-care: their impact on health policy and nursing" 2003:

Quality Improvement Organizations and Health Information Exchange.

1595: 1548: 685: 683: 312: 169: 1521:

Edwards MT. "Peer review: a new tool for quality improvement.

1526: 460:

Haines, S. (1984). "Hospital peer review systems: an overview".

2701: 1549:"Clinical Peer Review Program Self-Evaluation for US Hospitals" 2530:. California Medical Association. January 2007. Archived from 1912:

Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1990. (see chapter 7)

1043:

Spier, Ray (2002). "The history of the peer-review process".

2825:

List of international healthcare accreditation organizations

1892:"American Medical Foundation for Peer Review and Education" 1121:

Ponton TR, "Gauging efficiency of hospital and its staff.

2557:(2009) 45 Cal.4th 1259, 203 P.3d 1113, 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 516. 2514:(April 18, 2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 531, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 171. 1896:

American Medical Foundation for Peer Review and Education

697: 695: 168:

written by Ishap bin Ali al-Rahawi (854–931) of al-Raha,

2499:"Khajavi v. Feather River Anesthesia Medical Group, Inc" 2458:

Joshua's Story: Uncovering the Morecambe Bay NHS Scandal

2022:

Krahwinkel W, Schuler M, Liebetrau; et al. (2016).

1873: 994:

Milchak, J. L.; Shanahan, R. L.; Kerzee, J. A. (2012).

912:

Haag-Heitman, Barb; George, Vicki (11 September 2011).

2630:"Editorial in Response to "What Is Sham Peer Review?"" 63:. Moreover, Medical peer review has been used by the 51:

Clinical peer review should be distinguished from the

2613:"All Is NOT Calm on the Hospital-Medical Staff Front" 2600:"The Cost of Courage: How the tables turn on doctors" 1695:"Florida Patient's Right to Know, Amendment 7 (2004)" 1523:

The Physician Executive Journal of Medical Management

1135:

Lembcke PA (1967). "Evolution of the medical audit".

2864: 2833: 2807: 2761: 2735: 1800:Baldwin LM, Hart GL, Oshel RE; et al. (1999). 2555:Mileikowsky v. West Hills Hosp. and Medical Center 855: 853: 2274:"Attacking Bad Faith Peer Review: Is It a SLAPP?" 2249:Little Stories of Life and Death @NHSwhistleblowr 1765:Livingston EH, Harwell JD (2001). "Peer review". 1218:"Aspects of audit. 2. Audit in British hospitals" 809: 807: 2203:Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 1742: 1740: 953:George, Vicki; Haag-Heitman, Barb (March 2011). 549:International Journal for Quality in Health Care 1874:"Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR)" 236: 102: 2024:"The effect of peer review on mortality rates" 1985:"Quality Improvement Organizations | CMS" 914:"Nursing peer review: Principles and practice" 2713: 2497:California Appeals Court (October 10, 2000). 1878:Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) 771: 769: 725: 723: 8: 2460:. Anderson Wallace Publishing. p. 250. 2062:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( 1840:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( 1349:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( 388:"The process of peer review in US hospitals" 332:privileges to conceal exculpatory evidence. 1910:Medicare: A Strategy for Quality Assurance. 1517: 1515: 639: 637: 2720: 2706: 2698: 2691:University of South Dakota Elder Law Forum 2242: 2240: 1479: 1477: 538: 536: 534: 532: 530: 528: 526: 524: 522: 381: 379: 260:Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act 2094: 2039: 2001:The American Health Quality Foundation. 1817: 1384: 1364:Ivers, Noah M; Barrett, Jon (June 2018). 1290: 1241: 1019: 970: 955:"Nursing peer review: the manager's role" 560: 2012:Washington, DC: March 6, 2006. (page 14) 1731:"[USC02] 42 USC 11101: Findings" 1713:"[USC02] 42 USC 11101: Findings" 1168: 1166: 2574: 2572: 431:10.7326/0003-4819-118-7-199304010-00014 395:Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management 375: 2820:International healthcare accreditation 2675:University of San Francisco Law Review 2484:American Journal of Law & Medicine 2182: 2180: 2055: 1833: 1342: 410: 408: 160:The first documented description of a 1594:Edwards, Marc T. (15 December 2010). 1440:Evaluation and the Health Professions 16:For other uses of "peer review", see 7: 2882:Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio 2841:Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio 2619:. LACMA Services Inc. Archived from 1908:Institute of Medicine, Lohr KN, ed. 2799:Routine health outcomes measurement 1600:American Journal of Medical Quality 1553:American Journal of Medical Quality 1271:Quality & Safety in Health Care 1187:10.5694/j.1326-5377.1981.tb135967.x 304:care provided by their colleagues. 226:Health Care Quality Improvement Act 2872:Clinical Quality Management System 828:10.1097/01.NCQ.0000324210.34497.f5 318:Healthcare Quality Improvement Act 14: 2512:Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem 2278:Sierra Sacramento Valley Medicine 2666:Philip L. Merkel (Winter 2004). 2079:"So What Is a Sham Peer Review?" 1936:10.1001/jama.1992.03480170075032 1216:Shaw, Charles D. (31 May 1980). 1149:10.1001/jama.1967.03120080077012 1000:Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy 972:10.1111/j.1365-2834.2011.01225.x 875:10.1097/00005650-200011000-00003 790:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.01934.x 732:Nursing Administration Quarterly 658:10.1097/00115514-201309000-00011 646:Journal of Healthcare Management 543:Edwards, Marc T (October 2018). 386:Edwards MT, Benjamin EM (2009). 212:Legal and regulatory environment 2423:New England Journal of Medicine 816:Journal of Nursing Care Quality 652:(5): 369–84, discussion 384–5. 247:National Practitioner Data Bank 1: 2877:Disability-adjusted life year 2617:Southern California Physician 2611:Magazine Staff (2006-08-01). 2350:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)60264-0 2077:Roland Chalifoux, Jr (2005). 1779:10.1016/s0002-9610(01)00679-1 1670:"Florida Peer Review Statute" 1498:10.1016/s0097-5990(16)30377-3 1427:JAMA. 1991;265(15):1977–1981. 1329:10.1016/s0277-9536(00)00458-5 1057:10.1016/s0167-7799(02)01985-6 959:Journal of Nursing Management 585:"High Reliability Healthcare" 2379:Hutchison, JS (March 2016). 1175:Medical Journal of Australia 744:10.1097/NAQ.0b013e3181accb62 628:"Oregon Peer Review Statute" 329:American Medical Association 65:American Medical Association 18:Peer review (disambiguation) 2846:Cost-effectiveness analysis 2682:Bryan G. Hall (Fall 2003). 2628:Charles Bond (2005-11-15). 1951:Archives of Family Medicine 1656:"Texas Peer Review Statute" 778:Journal of Clinical Nursing 505:"AMA – Medical Peer Review" 418:Annals of Internal Medicine 2954: 2887:Quality-adjusted life year 2851:Cost-minimization analysis 2779:Independent medical review 2598:Steve Twedt (2003-10-26). 2247:Drew, David (2014-09-28). 1963:10.1001/archfami.2.12.1271 1452:10.1177/016327879401700101 1092:10.5144/0256-4947.1997.326 1012:10.18553/jmcp.2012.18.1.46 292: 149: 15: 2634:Medscape General Medicine 2272:Abrams, Greg (May 2006). 2083:Medscape General Medicine 1547:Edwards, Marc T. (2010). 1386:10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007563 1234:10.1136/bmj.280.6227.1314 2794:Health services research 2789:Health impact assessment 2677:. 38 U.S.F. L. Rev. 301. 1612:10.1177/1062860610380732 1565:10.1177/1062860610371224 1373:BMJ Quality & Safety 1283:10.1136/qshc.2006.018549 1080:Annals of Saudi Medicine 164:process is found in the 2762:Health care evaluations 2743:Evidence-based medicine 2594:(last accessed 2/11/19) 1683:(last accessed 1/30/19) 1486:Quality Review Bulletin 1222:British Medical Journal 1045:Trends in Biotechnology 589:www.jointcommission.org 166:Ethics of the Physician 2933:Health care management 2815:Hospital accreditation 2315:10.1001/jama.2014.8054 2028:Int J Qual Health Care 1819:10.1001/jama.282.4.349 1748:"The NPDB – Home Page" 365:Utilization management 337:California legislature 240: 107: 2041:10.1093/intqhc/mzw072 1413:Ministry of Health NZ 562:10.1093/intqhc/mzy069 150:Further information: 33:physician peer review 2774:Clinical peer review 2435:10.1056/NEJMp1502629 918:American Nurse Today 360:Subpoena duces tecum 269:External peer review 24:Clinical peer review 2923:Health care quality 2784:Health care ratings 2736:Concepts of quality 2729:Health care quality 2284:(3). Archived from 2165:. 2015. p. 391 2143:. 1990. p. 408 2121:. 1993. p. 291 1525:2009;35(5):54-59. 1125:1928;31(Aug):64–68. 194:Quality Improvement 152:Quality improvement 61:Medical Peer Review 37:nursing peer review 28:medical peer review 2913:Medical regulation 2856:Cost per procedure 2834:Costs and benefits 2592:The NPDB Guidebook 2008:2009-01-08 at the 2895: 2894: 2753:Medical guideline 2748:Medical consensus 2429:(11): 1001–1003. 2400:10.1111/nin.12115 2215:10.1002/ccd.21544 1930:(17): 2349–2354. 1752:www.npdb.hrsa.gov 2945: 2908:Health economics 2722: 2715: 2708: 2699: 2694: 2688: 2678: 2672: 2662: 2659:10.1109/6.963247 2641: 2624: 2607: 2606:. PG Publishing. 2590:NPDB Guidebook: 2579: 2576: 2567: 2564: 2558: 2552: 2546: 2545: 2543: 2542: 2536: 2529: 2521: 2515: 2509: 2503: 2502: 2494: 2488: 2487: 2478: 2472: 2471: 2453: 2447: 2446: 2418: 2412: 2411: 2385: 2376: 2370: 2369: 2333: 2327: 2326: 2298: 2292: 2289: 2269: 2263: 2262: 2244: 2235: 2234: 2198: 2192: 2191: 2184: 2175: 2174: 2172: 2170: 2159: 2153: 2152: 2150: 2148: 2137: 2131: 2130: 2128: 2126: 2115: 2109: 2108: 2098: 2074: 2068: 2067: 2061: 2053: 2043: 2019: 2013: 1999: 1993: 1992: 1981: 1975: 1974: 1946: 1940: 1939: 1919: 1913: 1906: 1900: 1899: 1888: 1882: 1881: 1870: 1864: 1863: 1852: 1846: 1845: 1839: 1831: 1821: 1797: 1791: 1790: 1762: 1756: 1755: 1744: 1735: 1734: 1727: 1721: 1720: 1717:uscode.house.gov 1709: 1703: 1702: 1691: 1685: 1680: 1674: 1673: 1666: 1660: 1659: 1652: 1646: 1645: 1638: 1632: 1631: 1591: 1585: 1584: 1544: 1538: 1535: 1529: 1527:reprint requests 1519: 1510: 1509: 1481: 1472: 1471: 1435: 1429: 1423: 1417: 1416: 1405: 1399: 1398: 1388: 1370: 1361: 1355: 1354: 1348: 1340: 1311: 1305: 1304: 1294: 1262: 1256: 1255: 1245: 1228:(6227): 1314–6. 1213: 1207: 1206: 1170: 1161: 1160: 1132: 1126: 1119: 1113: 1110: 1104: 1103: 1075: 1069: 1068: 1040: 1034: 1033: 1023: 991: 985: 984: 974: 950: 944: 941: 935: 932: 926: 925: 909: 903: 902: 857: 848: 847: 811: 802: 801: 773: 764: 763: 727: 718: 717: 715: 714: 705:. Archived from 699: 690: 687: 678: 677: 641: 632: 631: 624: 618: 617: 615: 614: 605:. Archived from 599: 593: 592: 581: 575: 574: 564: 540: 517: 516: 511:. Archived from 509:www.ama-assn.org 501: 495: 494: 492: 484: 478: 477: 457: 451: 450: 412: 403: 402: 392: 383: 295:Sham peer review 26:, also known as 2953: 2952: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2891: 2860: 2829: 2803: 2757: 2731: 2726: 2686: 2681: 2670: 2665: 2644: 2627: 2610: 2597: 2587: 2585:Further reading 2582: 2577: 2570: 2565: 2561: 2553: 2549: 2540: 2538: 2534: 2527: 2523: 2522: 2518: 2510: 2506: 2496: 2495: 2491: 2480: 2479: 2475: 2468: 2455: 2454: 2450: 2420: 2419: 2415: 2388:Nursing Inquiry 2383: 2378: 2377: 2373: 2344:(9866): 521–2. 2335: 2334: 2330: 2300: 2299: 2295: 2271: 2270: 2266: 2259: 2246: 2245: 2238: 2200: 2199: 2195: 2186: 2185: 2178: 2168: 2166: 2161: 2160: 2156: 2146: 2144: 2139: 2138: 2134: 2124: 2122: 2117: 2116: 2112: 2076: 2075: 2071: 2054: 2021: 2020: 2016: 2010:Wayback Machine 2000: 1996: 1983: 1982: 1978: 1948: 1947: 1943: 1921: 1920: 1916: 1907: 1903: 1890: 1889: 1885: 1872: 1871: 1867: 1860:www.govinfo.gov 1854: 1853: 1849: 1832: 1799: 1798: 1794: 1764: 1763: 1759: 1746: 1745: 1738: 1729: 1728: 1724: 1711: 1710: 1706: 1693: 1692: 1688: 1681: 1677: 1668: 1667: 1663: 1654: 1653: 1649: 1640: 1639: 1635: 1593: 1592: 1588: 1546: 1545: 1541: 1536: 1532: 1520: 1513: 1483: 1482: 1475: 1437: 1436: 1432: 1424: 1420: 1407: 1406: 1402: 1368: 1363: 1362: 1358: 1341: 1323:(12): 1721–32. 1313: 1312: 1308: 1264: 1263: 1259: 1215: 1214: 1210: 1181:(13): 709–711. 1172: 1171: 1164: 1134: 1133: 1129: 1123:Modern Hospital 1120: 1116: 1111: 1107: 1077: 1076: 1072: 1051:(8): 357–358 . 1042: 1041: 1037: 993: 992: 988: 952: 951: 947: 942: 938: 933: 929: 911: 910: 906: 869:(11): 1074–91. 859: 858: 851: 813: 812: 805: 775: 774: 767: 729: 728: 721: 712: 710: 701: 700: 693: 688: 681: 643: 642: 635: 626: 625: 621: 612: 610: 601: 600: 596: 583: 582: 578: 542: 541: 520: 503: 502: 498: 490: 486: 485: 481: 459: 458: 454: 414: 413: 406: 390: 385: 384: 377: 373: 356: 297: 291: 271: 262: 249: 228: 219: 214: 158: 148: 140: 98: 73: 49: 21: 12: 11: 5: 2951: 2949: 2941: 2940: 2935: 2930: 2928:Patient safety 2925: 2920: 2915: 2910: 2900: 2899: 2893: 2892: 2890: 2889: 2884: 2879: 2874: 2868: 2866: 2862: 2861: 2859: 2858: 2853: 2848: 2843: 2837: 2835: 2831: 2830: 2828: 2827: 2822: 2817: 2811: 2809: 2805: 2804: 2802: 2801: 2796: 2791: 2786: 2781: 2776: 2771: 2769:Clinical audit 2765: 2763: 2759: 2758: 2756: 2755: 2750: 2745: 2739: 2737: 2733: 2732: 2727: 2725: 2724: 2717: 2710: 2702: 2696: 2695: 2679: 2663: 2642: 2625: 2623:on 2006-09-02. 2608: 2595: 2586: 2583: 2581: 2580: 2568: 2559: 2547: 2516: 2504: 2489: 2473: 2466: 2448: 2413: 2371: 2328: 2293: 2288:on 2011-07-21. 2264: 2257: 2236: 2193: 2176: 2154: 2132: 2110: 2069: 2034:(5): 594–600. 2014: 1994: 1976: 1957:(12): 1271–5. 1941: 1914: 1901: 1883: 1865: 1847: 1812:(4): 349–355. 1792: 1773:(2): 103–109. 1757: 1736: 1722: 1704: 1686: 1675: 1661: 1647: 1633: 1606:(2): 110–119. 1586: 1559:(6): 474–480. 1539: 1530: 1511: 1473: 1430: 1418: 1400: 1379:(6): 417–420. 1356: 1306: 1257: 1208: 1162: 1143:(8): 543–550. 1127: 1114: 1105: 1086:(3): 326–327. 1070: 1035: 986: 945: 936: 927: 904: 849: 822:(4): 296–304. 803: 765: 719: 691: 679: 633: 619: 594: 576: 555:(8): 602–607. 518: 515:on 2009-02-11. 496: 479: 452: 404: 401:(10): 461–467. 374: 372: 369: 368: 367: 362: 355: 352: 309:whistleblowing 293:Main article: 290: 287: 270: 267: 261: 258: 248: 245: 227: 224: 218: 215: 213: 210: 156:Clinical audit 147: 144: 139: 136: 97: 94: 72: 69: 48: 45: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2950: 2939: 2938:Medical error 2936: 2934: 2931: 2929: 2926: 2924: 2921: 2919: 2916: 2914: 2911: 2909: 2906: 2905: 2903: 2888: 2885: 2883: 2880: 2878: 2875: 2873: 2870: 2869: 2867: 2863: 2857: 2854: 2852: 2849: 2847: 2844: 2842: 2839: 2838: 2836: 2832: 2826: 2823: 2821: 2818: 2816: 2813: 2812: 2810: 2808:Accreditation 2806: 2800: 2797: 2795: 2792: 2790: 2787: 2785: 2782: 2780: 2777: 2775: 2772: 2770: 2767: 2766: 2764: 2760: 2754: 2751: 2749: 2746: 2744: 2741: 2740: 2738: 2734: 2730: 2723: 2718: 2716: 2711: 2709: 2704: 2703: 2700: 2692: 2685: 2680: 2676: 2669: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2653:(11): 61–63. 2652: 2648: 2647:IEEE Spectrum 2643: 2639: 2635: 2631: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2609: 2605: 2601: 2596: 2593: 2589: 2588: 2584: 2575: 2573: 2569: 2563: 2560: 2556: 2551: 2548: 2537:on 2006-10-05 2533: 2526: 2520: 2517: 2513: 2508: 2505: 2500: 2493: 2490: 2485: 2477: 2474: 2469: 2467:9780993449208 2463: 2459: 2452: 2449: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2417: 2414: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2382: 2375: 2372: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2332: 2329: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2297: 2294: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2268: 2265: 2260: 2258:9781783065233 2254: 2250: 2243: 2241: 2237: 2232: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2209:(7): 1000–1. 2208: 2204: 2197: 2194: 2189: 2183: 2181: 2177: 2164: 2158: 2155: 2142: 2136: 2133: 2120: 2114: 2111: 2106: 2102: 2097: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2073: 2070: 2065: 2059: 2051: 2047: 2042: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2018: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2004: 1998: 1995: 1990: 1986: 1980: 1977: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1945: 1942: 1937: 1933: 1929: 1925: 1918: 1915: 1911: 1905: 1902: 1897: 1893: 1887: 1884: 1879: 1875: 1869: 1866: 1861: 1857: 1851: 1848: 1843: 1837: 1829: 1825: 1820: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1796: 1793: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1761: 1758: 1753: 1749: 1743: 1741: 1737: 1732: 1726: 1723: 1718: 1714: 1708: 1705: 1700: 1696: 1690: 1687: 1684: 1679: 1676: 1671: 1665: 1662: 1657: 1651: 1648: 1643: 1637: 1634: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1590: 1587: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1543: 1540: 1534: 1531: 1528: 1524: 1518: 1516: 1512: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1492:(7): 246–51. 1491: 1487: 1480: 1478: 1474: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1434: 1431: 1428: 1422: 1419: 1414: 1410: 1404: 1401: 1396: 1392: 1387: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1367: 1360: 1357: 1352: 1346: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1310: 1307: 1302: 1298: 1293: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1261: 1258: 1253: 1249: 1244: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1212: 1209: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1169: 1167: 1163: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1131: 1128: 1124: 1118: 1115: 1109: 1106: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1074: 1071: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1039: 1036: 1031: 1027: 1022: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1001: 997: 990: 987: 982: 978: 973: 968: 964: 960: 956: 949: 946: 940: 937: 931: 928: 923: 919: 915: 908: 905: 900: 896: 892: 888: 884: 880: 876: 872: 868: 864: 856: 854: 850: 845: 841: 837: 833: 829: 825: 821: 817: 810: 808: 804: 799: 795: 791: 787: 784:(4): 427–42. 783: 779: 772: 770: 766: 761: 757: 753: 749: 745: 741: 737: 733: 726: 724: 720: 709:on 2011-08-05 708: 704: 698: 696: 692: 686: 684: 680: 675: 671: 667: 663: 659: 655: 651: 647: 640: 638: 634: 629: 623: 620: 609:on 2022-01-23 608: 604: 598: 595: 590: 586: 580: 577: 572: 568: 563: 558: 554: 550: 546: 539: 537: 535: 533: 531: 529: 527: 525: 523: 519: 514: 510: 506: 500: 497: 489: 483: 480: 475: 471: 467: 463: 462:Health Matrix 456: 453: 448: 444: 440: 436: 432: 428: 424: 420: 419: 411: 409: 405: 400: 396: 389: 382: 380: 376: 370: 366: 363: 361: 358: 357: 353: 351: 347: 344: 341: 338: 333: 330: 325: 323: 319: 314: 310: 305: 302: 296: 288: 286: 283: 279: 275: 268: 266: 259: 257: 253: 246: 244: 239: 235: 232: 225: 223: 217:United States 216: 211: 209: 205: 201: 197: 195: 189: 185: 181: 179: 175: 171: 167: 163: 157: 153: 145: 143: 137: 135: 131: 127: 123: 119: 115: 111: 106: 101: 95: 93: 89: 85: 83: 77: 70: 68: 66: 62: 58: 54: 46: 44: 40: 38: 34: 29: 25: 19: 2773: 2690: 2674: 2650: 2646: 2637: 2633: 2621:the original 2616: 2604:Post-Gazette 2603: 2562: 2554: 2550: 2539:. Retrieved 2532:the original 2519: 2511: 2507: 2492: 2483: 2476: 2457: 2451: 2426: 2422: 2416: 2394:(1): 32–41. 2391: 2387: 2374: 2341: 2337: 2331: 2309:(5): 481–2. 2306: 2302: 2296: 2286:the original 2281: 2277: 2267: 2248: 2206: 2202: 2196: 2167:. Retrieved 2157: 2145:. Retrieved 2135: 2123:. Retrieved 2113: 2086: 2082: 2072: 2058:cite journal 2031: 2027: 2017: 1997: 1988: 1979: 1954: 1950: 1944: 1927: 1923: 1917: 1904: 1895: 1886: 1877: 1868: 1859: 1850: 1836:cite journal 1809: 1805: 1795: 1770: 1766: 1760: 1751: 1725: 1716: 1707: 1698: 1689: 1678: 1664: 1650: 1636: 1603: 1599: 1589: 1556: 1552: 1542: 1533: 1522: 1489: 1485: 1443: 1439: 1433: 1421: 1412: 1403: 1376: 1372: 1359: 1345:cite journal 1320: 1316: 1309: 1277:(6): 433–6. 1274: 1270: 1260: 1225: 1221: 1211: 1178: 1174: 1140: 1136: 1130: 1122: 1117: 1108: 1083: 1079: 1073: 1048: 1044: 1038: 1006:(1): 46–53. 1003: 999: 989: 965:(2): 254–9. 962: 958: 948: 939: 930: 921: 917: 907: 866: 863:Medical Care 862: 819: 815: 781: 777: 738:(3): 251–7. 735: 731: 711:. Retrieved 707:the original 649: 645: 622: 611:. Retrieved 607:the original 597: 588: 579: 552: 548: 513:the original 508: 499: 482: 465: 461: 455: 425:(7): 566–8. 422: 416: 398: 394: 348: 345: 342: 334: 326: 306: 298: 284: 280: 276: 272: 263: 254: 250: 241: 237: 233: 229: 220: 206: 202: 198: 190: 186: 182: 165: 159: 141: 132: 128: 124: 120: 118:peer review 116: 112: 108: 103: 99: 90: 86: 78: 74: 60: 50: 41: 36: 32: 27: 23: 22: 2918:Peer review 2251:. Matador. 1989:www.cms.gov 1699:Ballotpedia 1446:(1): 3–21. 1317:Soc Sci Med 924:(9): 48–53. 468:(4): 30–2. 162:peer review 57:peer review 53:peer review 2902:Categories 2541:2015-06-20 713:2011-07-23 613:2021-03-21 488:"page 131" 371:References 2089:(4): 47. 1856:"govinfo" 1767:Am J Surg 316:the 1986 2640:(4): 48. 2443:26981930 2408:26189555 2358:23424727 2323:24945974 2291:safety". 2231:20779536 2223:18383176 2169:26 April 2147:26 April 2125:26 April 2105:16614669 2050:27424326 2006:Archived 1828:10432032 1787:11574078 1628:34522712 1620:21169223 1581:23236198 1573:20733206 1468:28236596 1460:10132480 1395:29317464 1337:11762896 1301:17142594 1100:17369732 1065:12127284 1030:22235954 1021:10438320 981:21375629 899:31948125 891:11078049 844:23046105 836:18528303 798:17419775 752:19546745 674:38480374 666:24195344 571:29635470 474:10272757 447:45863865 354:See also 322:immunity 138:Pharmacy 71:Medicine 47:Overview 2366:5421485 2096:1681729 1971:8130910 1506:2120663 1292:2464905 1252:7388522 1243:1601590 1203:6762159 1195:7024757 1157:5335644 883:3767807 760:5883834 439:8442628 178:lawsuit 146:History 96:Nursing 2464: 2441: 2406: 2364: 2356: 2338:Lancet 2321: 2255: 2229: 2221: 2103: 2093: 2048: 1969: 1826: 1785: 1626: 1618: 1579: 1571: 1504: 1466: 1458: 1393: 1335: 1299: 1289: 1250: 1240: 1201: 1193: 1155: 1098: 1063: 1028: 1018: 979: 897: 889: 881: 842: 834: 796: 758: 750: 672: 664: 569: 472: 445: 437: 301:doctor 174:review 82:Oregon 2865:Tools 2687:(PDF) 2671:(PDF) 2535:(PDF) 2528:(PDF) 2384:(PDF) 2362:S2CID 2227:S2CID 1624:S2CID 1577:S2CID 1464:S2CID 1369:(PDF) 1199:S2CID 895:S2CID 879:JSTOR 840:S2CID 756:S2CID 670:S2CID 491:(PDF) 443:S2CID 391:(PDF) 313:JCAHO 289:Abuse 170:Syria 2462:ISBN 2439:PMID 2404:PMID 2354:PMID 2319:PMID 2303:JAMA 2253:ISBN 2219:PMID 2171:2016 2149:2016 2127:2016 2101:PMID 2064:link 2046:PMID 1967:PMID 1924:JAMA 1842:link 1824:PMID 1806:JAMA 1783:PMID 1616:PMID 1569:PMID 1502:PMID 1456:PMID 1391:PMID 1351:link 1333:PMID 1297:PMID 1248:PMID 1191:PMID 1153:PMID 1137:JAMA 1096:PMID 1061:PMID 1026:PMID 977:PMID 887:PMID 832:PMID 794:PMID 748:PMID 662:PMID 567:PMID 470:PMID 435:PMID 335:The 327:The 154:and 2655:doi 2431:doi 2427:374 2396:doi 2346:doi 2342:381 2311:doi 2307:312 2211:doi 2091:PMC 2036:doi 1959:doi 1932:doi 1928:267 1814:doi 1810:281 1775:doi 1771:182 1608:doi 1561:doi 1494:doi 1448:doi 1381:doi 1325:doi 1287:PMC 1279:doi 1238:PMC 1230:doi 1226:280 1183:doi 1145:doi 1141:199 1088:doi 1053:doi 1016:PMC 1008:doi 967:doi 871:doi 824:doi 786:doi 740:doi 654:doi 557:doi 427:doi 423:118 39:). 2904:: 2689:. 2673:. 2651:38 2649:. 2636:. 2632:. 2615:. 2602:. 2571:^ 2437:. 2425:. 2402:. 2392:23 2390:. 2386:. 2360:. 2352:. 2340:. 2317:. 2305:. 2282:57 2280:. 2276:. 2239:^ 2225:. 2217:. 2207:71 2205:. 2179:^ 2099:. 2085:. 2081:. 2060:}} 2056:{{ 2044:. 2032:28 2030:. 2026:. 1987:. 1965:. 1953:. 1926:. 1894:. 1876:. 1858:. 1838:}} 1834:{{ 1822:. 1808:. 1804:. 1781:. 1769:. 1750:. 1739:^ 1715:. 1697:. 1622:. 1614:. 1604:26 1602:. 1598:. 1575:. 1567:. 1557:25 1555:. 1551:. 1514:^ 1500:. 1490:16 1488:. 1476:^ 1462:. 1454:. 1444:17 1442:. 1411:. 1389:. 1377:27 1375:. 1371:. 1347:}} 1343:{{ 1331:. 1321:53 1319:. 1295:. 1285:. 1275:15 1273:. 1269:. 1246:. 1236:. 1224:. 1220:. 1197:. 1189:. 1177:. 1165:^ 1151:. 1139:. 1094:. 1084:17 1082:. 1059:. 1049:20 1047:. 1024:. 1014:. 1004:18 1002:. 998:. 975:. 963:19 961:. 957:. 920:. 916:. 893:. 885:. 877:. 867:38 865:. 852:^ 838:. 830:. 820:23 818:. 806:^ 792:. 782:17 780:. 768:^ 754:. 746:. 736:33 734:. 722:^ 694:^ 682:^ 668:. 660:. 650:58 648:. 636:^ 587:. 565:. 553:30 551:. 547:. 521:^ 507:. 464:. 441:. 433:. 421:. 407:^ 399:16 397:. 393:. 378:^ 35:, 2721:e 2714:t 2707:v 2693:. 2661:. 2657:: 2638:7 2544:. 2501:. 2486:. 2470:. 2445:. 2433:: 2410:. 2398:: 2368:. 2348:: 2325:. 2313:: 2261:. 2233:. 2213:: 2190:. 2173:. 2151:. 2129:. 2107:. 2087:7 2066:) 2052:. 2038:: 1991:. 1973:. 1961:: 1955:2 1938:. 1934:: 1898:. 1880:. 1862:. 1844:) 1830:. 1816:: 1789:. 1777:: 1754:. 1733:. 1719:. 1701:. 1672:. 1658:. 1644:. 1630:. 1610:: 1583:. 1563:: 1508:. 1496:: 1470:. 1450:: 1415:. 1397:. 1383:: 1353:) 1339:. 1327:: 1303:. 1281:: 1254:. 1232:: 1205:. 1185:: 1179:1 1159:. 1147:: 1102:. 1090:: 1067:. 1055:: 1032:. 1010:: 983:. 969:: 922:6 901:. 873:: 846:. 826:: 800:. 788:: 762:. 742:: 716:. 676:. 656:: 630:. 616:. 591:. 573:. 559:: 493:. 476:. 466:2 449:. 429:: 20:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index