Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 614

1.

Grading the graders: how hospitals in California and New York perceive and interpret their report cards.

Romano PS, Rainwater JA, Antonius D.

Med Care. 1999 Mar;37(3):295-305.

PMID:
10098573
2.

The California Hospital Outcomes Project: how useful is California's report card for quality improvement?

Rainwater JA, Romano PS, Antonius DM.

Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1998 Jan;24(1):31-9.

PMID:
9494872
3.

Do well-publicized risk-adjusted outcomes reports affect hospital volume?

Romano PS, Zhou H.

Med Care. 2004 Apr;42(4):367-77.

PMID:
15076814
4.

Poor data quality, reporting delays render CA, NY hospital report cards 'nearly useless'.

[No authors listed]

Data Strateg Benchmarks. 1999 Oct;3(10):157-60, 145.

PMID:
10724607
5.
6.

Ranking hospitals on surgical quality: does risk-adjustment always matter?

Dimick JB, Birkmeyer JD.

J Am Coll Surg. 2008 Sep;207(3):347-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.04.014. Epub 2008 Jun 2.

PMID:
18722939
7.

How well do hospital mortality rates reported in the New York State CABG report card predict subsequent hospital performance?

Glance LG, Dick AW, Mukamel DB, Li Y, Osler TM.

Med Care. 2010 May;48(5):466-71. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181d568f7.

PMID:
20351585
8.

What data do California HMOs use to select hospitals for contracting?

Rainwater JA, Romano PS.

Am J Manag Care. 2003 Aug;9(8):553-61.

9.

Procedure rates and outcomes of coronary revascularization procedures in California and New York.

Carey JS, Danielsen B, Gold JP, Rossiter SJ.

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005 Jun;129(6):1276-82.

10.

Administrative versus clinical data for coronary artery bypass graft surgery report cards: the view from California.

Parker JP, Li Z, Damberg CL, Danielsen B, Carlisle DM.

Med Care. 2006 Jul;44(7):687-95.

PMID:
16799364
11.

Racial profiling: the unintended consequences of coronary artery bypass graft report cards.

Werner RM, Asch DA, Polsky D.

Circulation. 2005 Mar 15;111(10):1257-63.

12.

Alternative pay-for-performance scoring methods: implications for quality improvement and patient outcomes.

Glickman SW, Boulding W, Roos JM, Staelin R, Peterson ED, Schulman KA.

Med Care. 2009 Oct;47(10):1062-8. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181a7e54c.

PMID:
19648833
13.

Hospital outcomes in major teaching, minor teaching, and nonteaching hospitals in New York state.

Polanczyk CA, Lane A, Coburn M, Philbin EF, Dec GW, DiSalvo TG.

Am J Med. 2002 Mar;112(4):255-61.

PMID:
11893363
14.

A Canadian comparison of data sources for coronary artery bypass surgery outcome "report cards".

Ghali WA, Rothwell DM, Quan H, Brant R, Tu JV.

Am Heart J. 2000 Sep;140(3):402-8.

PMID:
10966537
15.

The role of hospital volume in coronary artery bypass grafting: is more always better?

Nallamothu BK, Saint S, Ramsey SD, Hofer TP, Vijan S, Eagle KA.

J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001 Dec;38(7):1923-30.

16.

Quality improvement efforts and hospital performance: rates of beta-blocker prescription after acute myocardial infarction.

Bradley EH, Herrin J, Mattera JA, Holmboe ES, Wang Y, Frederick P, Roumanis SA, Radford MJ, Krumholz HM.

Med Care. 2005 Mar;43(3):282-92.

PMID:
15725985
17.

Do hospitals and surgeons with higher coronary artery bypass graft surgery volumes still have lower risk-adjusted mortality rates?

Hannan EL, Wu C, Ryan TJ, Bennett E, Culliford AT, Gold JP, Hartman A, Isom OW, Jones RH, McNeil B, Rose EA, Subramanian VA.

Circulation. 2003 Aug 19;108(7):795-801. Epub 2003 Jul 28.

19.

Impact of the choice of benchmark on the conclusions of hospital report cards.

Austin PC, Alter DA, Anderson GM, Tu JV.

Am Heart J. 2004 Dec;148(6):1041-6.

PMID:
15632891
20.

Measures of surgical quality: what will patients know by 2005?

Broder MS, Payne-Simon L, Brook RH.

J Eval Clin Pract. 2005 Jun;11(3):209-17.

Supplemental Content

Support Center