This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Lanska, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lanska, D. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

A Public/Private Partnership in the Quest for Quality: Development of Cerebrovascular Disease Practice Guidelines and Review Criteria

Departments of Neurology, Preventive Medicine and Environmental Health, and the Sanders Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky, Neurology Service, Veterans Administration Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky

The development of Uniform Clinical Data Set (UCDS) algorithms for cerebrovascular disease can serve as a model for cooperation between government agencies and physician organizations in the develop ment of clinical guidelines and the translation of prac tice guidelines into review criteria. UCDS is a computer ized system of data collection and case finding developed by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) to standardize the Peer Review Organization screening process for potential utilization and quality problems. Input on the cerebrovascular disease algo rithms was provided through the American Medical As sociation UCDS Advisory Panel and the American Acad emy of Neurology Task Force on Hospital Utilization for Stroke. Physician organizations were successful in identifying problematic areas, improving the original al gorithms, suggesting new issues for development, and deleting inappropriate or misdirected algorithms. Since HCFA modified the cerebrovascular disease algorithms in response to feedback, physician organizations have had an important impact on algorithm development. Un fortunately, the process for algorithm review was often complicated, inefficient, and slow. This process is re viewed, problems and constraints are discussed, and specific recommendations are given for improving the process.

American Journal of Medical Quality, Vol. 10, No. 2, 100-106 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/0885713X9501000207


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?