HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by McAuliffe, W E Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by McAuliffe, W E

On the statistical validity of standards used in profile monitoring of health care.

W E McAuliffe

In current methods of profile monitoring, standards of acceptability (cut-offs) are set either by consulting panels of experts, or by selecting an arbitrary point (e.g., the 75th percentile) on the profile (statistical distribution). However, experts have only vague ideas of what outcome rates ought to be, while profile statistics stem from samples for which unknown percentages of cases have received acceptable care. Poorly chosen standards could cause profile monitoring to be ineffective, inefficient, or unnecessarily disruptive. A new method proposes to set standards by using statistics for which the percentage of adequate care has been predetermined by examining the process of care. Plans to circumvent the pitfalls involved are described, as are two approaches to estimating the degree of process adequacy from routinely produced outcome rates.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. A. Brand, L. Quam, and S. Leatherman Medical Practice Profiling: Concepts and Caveats Med Care Res Rev, June 1, 1995; 52(2): 223 - 251. [Abstract] [PDF]