{"title":"同时进行病例记录筛选:未能证明获益。","authors":"M Barton, M Burr","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In 1991 the third of a series of trials of concurrent case note screening was conducted over a 4 month period in one surgical and one medical unit of a busy metropolitan public teaching hospital in South Australia. The conclusion reached was that there is insufficient evidence of consistent improvement to justify the continuation of this expensive method of quality assurance. Traditional monitoring of performance by consultants, perhaps with the aid of computer-assisted management information, should achieve similar results.</p>","PeriodicalId":77019,"journal":{"name":"Australian clinical review","volume":"12 2","pages":"85-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1992-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Concurrent case note screening: failure to demonstrate benefit.\",\"authors\":\"M Barton, M Burr\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In 1991 the third of a series of trials of concurrent case note screening was conducted over a 4 month period in one surgical and one medical unit of a busy metropolitan public teaching hospital in South Australia. The conclusion reached was that there is insufficient evidence of consistent improvement to justify the continuation of this expensive method of quality assurance. Traditional monitoring of performance by consultants, perhaps with the aid of computer-assisted management information, should achieve similar results.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":77019,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian clinical review\",\"volume\":\"12 2\",\"pages\":\"85-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1992-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian clinical review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian clinical review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Concurrent case note screening: failure to demonstrate benefit.
In 1991 the third of a series of trials of concurrent case note screening was conducted over a 4 month period in one surgical and one medical unit of a busy metropolitan public teaching hospital in South Australia. The conclusion reached was that there is insufficient evidence of consistent improvement to justify the continuation of this expensive method of quality assurance. Traditional monitoring of performance by consultants, perhaps with the aid of computer-assisted management information, should achieve similar results.