Skip header and navigation

Refine By

45 records – page 1 of 5.

Source
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1991 May 10;111(12):1466-8
Publication Type
Article
Date
May-10-1991
Author
P. Major
Author Affiliation
Romås helse- og sosialsenter, Oslo.
Source
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1991 May 10;111(12):1466-8
Date
May-10-1991
Language
Norwegian
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Ambulatory Care Facilities - standards
Child
Child Health Services - standards
Child, Preschool
English Abstract
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Norway
Referral and Consultation
Vision Disorders - diagnosis
Abstract
The focus of this survey was the various sides of the work performed by the doctor at a child health center. One third of the children were referred to various specialists. In the case of five children in the physicians at the health center may have overlooked pathological disorder. This applied especially to the vision test at the age of four years. In twelve cases the parents failed to follow up special controls for their children. This again applied particularly to the follow-up of impaired vision. A thorough and correct vision test at the age of four years is recommended, as well as good follow-up routines for children at risk.
PubMed ID
2042175 View in PubMed
Less detail

[Analysis of the quality of primary therapeutic-preventive care rendered to patients with type I diabetes mellitus].

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature218247
Source
Probl Endokrinol (Mosk). 1994 May-Jun;40(3):19-22
Publication Type
Article
Author
M B Antsiferov
E G Starostina
G R Galstian
I I Dedov
Source
Probl Endokrinol (Mosk). 1994 May-Jun;40(3):19-22
Language
Russian
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adolescent
Adult
Ambulatory Care Facilities - standards
Carbohydrate Metabolism
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 - complications - therapy
Diabetic Ketoacidosis - etiology - prevention & control
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Moscow
Patient compliance
Prospective Studies
Quality of Health Care
Abstract
A prospective follow-up of a random sample of patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus revealed a marked decompensation of carbohydrate metabolism in 98% of the examinees, a high incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis, a long duration of temporary invalidity, and poor adherence of patients to medical recommendations. Assessment of primary health care rendered to patients with type I diabetes at district outpatient clinics of Moscow demonstrated its poor efficacy and a necessity to improve the level of specialized diabetologic care.
PubMed ID
8072994 View in PubMed
Less detail

[A quality assurance instrument at ambulatory health centers. A scale for identification of depression among the elderly]

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature46407
Source
Lakartidningen. 1997 Mar 19;94(12):1099-102
Publication Type
Article
Date
Mar-19-1997
Author
C G Gottfries
S. Noltorp
N. Nørgaard
A. Holmén
B. Högstedt
Author Affiliation
Göteborgs universitet, institutionen för klinisk neurovetenskap, avdelningen för psykiatri och neurokemi, Mölndal.
Source
Lakartidningen. 1997 Mar 19;94(12):1099-102
Date
Mar-19-1997
Language
Swedish
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Aged
Ambulatory Care Facilities - standards
Depression - diagnosis - epidemiology
Depressive Disorder - diagnosis - epidemiology
Geriatric Psychiatry - standards
Humans
Psychiatric Status Rating Scales
Quality Assurance, Health Care
Questionnaires
Sweden - epidemiology
PubMed ID
9121246 View in PubMed
Less detail

[Are we missing something serious? Study of emergency visits to a health center].

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature218185
Source
Lakartidningen. 1994 May 4;91(18):1823-4
Publication Type
Article
Date
May-4-1994

[A tool-box in health care centers stimulates quality development of health care].

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature207561
Source
Lakartidningen. 1997 Sep 3;94(36):3041-2
Publication Type
Article
Date
Sep-3-1997
Author
K. Lindström
L. Persson
Author Affiliation
Utvecklingsenheten och Vårdcentralen, Habo.
Source
Lakartidningen. 1997 Sep 3;94(36):3041-2
Date
Sep-3-1997
Language
Swedish
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Ambulatory Care Facilities - standards
Forms and Records Control
Humans
Quality Assurance, Health Care
Questionnaires
Sweden
PubMed ID
9312626 View in PubMed
Less detail

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on safety and quality indicators in endoscopy.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature127304
Source
Can J Gastroenterol. 2012 Jan;26(1):17-31
Publication Type
Conference/Meeting Material
Article
Date
Jan-2012
Author
David Armstrong
Alan Barkun
Ron Bridges
Rose Carter
Chris de Gara
Catherine Dube
Robert Enns
Roger Hollingworth
Donald Macintosh
Mark Borgaonkar
Sylviane Forget
Grigorios Leontiadis
Jonathan Meddings
Peter Cotton
Ernst J Kuipers
Author Affiliation
Division of Gastroenterrology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. armstro@mcmaster.ca
Source
Can J Gastroenterol. 2012 Jan;26(1):17-31
Date
Jan-2012
Language
English
Publication Type
Conference/Meeting Material
Article
Keywords
Ambulatory Care Facilities - standards
Canada
Clinical Competence - standards
Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal - education - standards
Humans
Informed Consent - standards
Patient Discharge - standards
Quality Indicators, Health Care - standards
Abstract
Increasing use of gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly for colorectal cancer screening, and increasing emphasis on health care quality, highlight the need for clearly defined, evidence-based processes to support quality improvement in endoscopy.
To identify processes and indicators of quality and safety relevant to high-quality endoscopy service delivery.
A multidisciplinary group of 35 voting participants developed recommendation statements and performance indicators. Systematic literature searches generated 50 initial statements that were revised iteratively following a modified Delphi approach using a web-based evaluation and voting tool. Statement development and evidence evaluation followed the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines, REsearch and Evaluation) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) guidelines. At the consensus conference, participants voted anonymously on all statements using a 6-point scale. Subsequent web-based voting evaluated recommendations for specific, individual quality indicators, safety indicators and mandatory endoscopy reporting fields. Consensus was defined a priori as agreement by 80% of participants.
Consensus was reached on 23 recommendation statements addressing the following: ethics (statement 1: agreement 100%), facility standards and policies (statements 2 to 9: 90% to 100%), quality assurance (statements 10 to 13: 94% to 100%), training, education, competency and privileges (statements 14 to 19: 97% to 100%), endoscopy reporting standards (statements 20 and 21: 97% to 100%) and patient perceptions (statements 22 and 23: 100%). Additionally, 18 quality indicators (agreement 83% to 100%), 20 safety indicators (agreement 77% to 100%) and 23 recommended endoscopy-reporting elements (agreement 91% to 100%) were identified.
The consensus process identified a clear need for high-quality clinical and outcomes research to support quality improvement in the delivery of endoscopy services.
The guidelines support quality improvement in endoscopy by providing explicit recommendations on systematic monitoring, assessment and modification of endoscopy service delivery to yield benefits for all patients affected by the practice of gastrointestinal endoscopy.
Notes
Cites: Hepatology. 2007 Sep;46(3):922-3817879356
Cites: Circulation. 2007 Oct 9;116(15):1736-5417446442
Cites: Can J Gastroenterol. 2007 Nov;21 Suppl D:5D-24D18026582
Cites: J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007 Dec;22(12):2081-518031364
Cites: Can J Gastroenterol. 2007 Dec;21(12):797-80118080050
Cites: Gastrointest Endosc. 2008 Jan;67(1):88-9318028918
Cites: Gastrointest Endosc. 2008 Jan;67(1):103-1118155431
Cites: Can J Gastroenterol. 2008 Jan;22(1):17-2218209776
Cites: Endoscopy. 2008 Feb;40(2):98-10518253904
Cites: Can J Gastroenterol. 2008 Feb;22(2):115-918299727
Cites: Can J Gastroenterol. 2008 Feb;22(2):155-6018299734
Cites: Can J Gastroenterol. 2008 Feb;22(2):161-718299735
Cites: Endoscopy. 2008 Apr;40(4):291-518389447
Cites: J Community Health. 2008 Jun;33(3):149-5718165928
Cites: BMJ. 2008 Apr 26;336(7650):924-618436948
Cites: Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008 Jun;20(6):500-218467907
Cites: Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Mar;69(3 Pt 2):620-519136102
Cites: Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Apr;69(4):883-91, quiz 891.e119152911
Cites: Gut. 2009 Jun;58(6):869-8019433598
Cites: Gastrointest Endosc. 2002 Jun;55(7):780-312024127
Cites: Bull World Health Organ. 2002;80(7):575-8012163922
Cites: Am J Gastroenterol. 2002 Oct;97(10):2651-612385455
Cites: Am J Gastroenterol. 2008 May;103(5):1122-3018445096
Cites: Can J Gastroenterol. 2008 Jun;22(6):547-5118560632
Cites: Dig Dis. 2008;26(1):75-918600020
Cites: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008 Oct;6(10):1091-818639495
Cites: Gastrointest Endosc. 2008 Nov;68(5):815-2618984096
Cites: Gastrointest Endosc. 2008 Dec;68(6):1043-5019028212
Cites: Colorectal Dis. 2008 Nov;10(9):898-90019037930
Cites: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008 Dec;6(12):1342-718799361
Cites: Gastroenterology. 2008 Dec;135(6):1899-1906, 1906.e118938166
Cites: N Engl J Med. 2009 Jan 29;360(5):491-919144931
Cites: Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 2009 Feb;33(2):103-818783903
Cites: J Clin Gastroenterol. 2009 Jul;43(6):554-819542818
Cites: Endoscopy. 2009 Jul;41(7):603-919588288
Cites: Endoscopy. 2009 Dec;41(12):1069-7419899028
Cites: Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Dec;70(6):1060-7019889407
Cites: Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2009 Dec;22(6):718-2419696663
Cites: Ann Intern Med. 2010 Jan 19;152(2):101-1320083829
Cites: Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Feb;71(2):319-2419647242
Cites: Surg Endosc. 2010 Oct;24(10):2556-6120339876
Cites: Gastrointest Endosc. 2001 Aug;54(2):175-911474386
Cites: Gastrointest Endosc. 2001 Sep;54(3):302-911522969
Cites: Am Surg. 2001 Sep;67(9):845-7; discussion 847-811565761
Cites: Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Feb;12(1):18-2312571340
Cites: Endoscopy. 2003 Oct;35(10):835-4014551861
Cites: Gastrointest Endosc. 2004 Apr;59(4):482-615044882
Cites: Ann Intern Med. 2004 Aug 17;141(4):264-7115313742
Cites: BMJ. 2004 Sep 18;329(7467):665-715374917
Cites: Gastrointest Endosc. 2004 Oct;60(4):505-1215472670
Cites: Anesth Analg. 1970 Nov-Dec;49(6):924-345534693
Cites: Lancet. 1974 Aug 17;2(7877):394-74136718
Cites: Can Anaesth Soc J. 1985 Jul;32(4):429-344027773
Cites: J Hepatol. 1987 Feb;4(1):93-83494762
Cites: N Engl J Med. 1987 Dec 24;317(26):1625-93317057
Cites: Gastrointest Endosc. 1990 May-Jun;36(3 Suppl):S5-82351256
Cites: Gastrointest Endosc. 1994 May-Jun;40(3):271-68056226
Cites: Gut. 1994 Sep;35(9):1209-147959225
Cites: Dis Colon Rectum. 1995 Jan;38(1):1-37813335
Cites: J Clin Anesth. 1995 Feb;7(1):89-917772368
Cites: Gastroenterology. 1996 Jul;111(1):85-928698230
Cites: Gastroenterology. 1997 Jan;112(1):24-88978338
Cites: Gastroenterol Nurs. 1996 Nov-Dec;19(6):194-2009025398
Cites: Gastrointest Endosc. 1998 Oct;48(4):341-79786104
Cites: J R Soc Med. 1998 Oct;91(10):528-3010070372
Cites: Gut. 1999 Aug;45(2):172-8010403727
Cites: Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 2004 Dec;28(12):1245-5515671936
Cites: Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006 Feb;160(2):211-616461880
Cites: Can J Gastroenterol. 2010 Oct;24(10):607-1321037990
Cites: Anesth Analg. 2010 Dec;111(6):1378-8720889933
Cites: Can J Gastroenterol. 2011 Jan;25(1):13-2021258663
Cites: Endoscopy. 1999 Oct;31(8):687-9410571144
Cites: Lancet. 1999 Dec 11;354(9195):2032-510636368
Cites: Gastrointest Endosc. 2000 Apr;51(4 Pt 1):451-910744818
Cites: Gastrointest Endosc. 2000 Sep;52(3):333-4110968846
Cites: Gastrointest Endosc. 2000 Nov;52(5):600-511060182
Cites: J Clin Gastroenterol. 2001 Feb;32(2):142-711205650
Cites: Gastrointest Endosc. 2001 Jan;53(1):140-211203714
Cites: Gastrointest Endosc. 2001 Jun;53(7):703-1011375575
Cites: Am J Gastroenterol. 2001 Jun;96(6):1786-9011419830
Cites: Gastrointest Endosc. 2006 Apr;63(4 Suppl):S3-916564906
Cites: Can J Gastroenterol. 2006 Jun;20(6):405-1016779458
Cites: Endoscopy. 2006 Jun;38 Suppl 1:S65-916802229
Cites: Gastroenterology. 2006 Nov;131(5):1392-917101315
Cites: Endoscopy. 2006 Nov;38(11):1137-4317111337
Cites: N Engl J Med. 2006 Dec 14;355(24):2533-4117167136
Cites: Ann Intern Med. 2006 Dec 19;145(12):895-90017179058
Cites: Colorectal Dis. 2007 Mar;9(3):203-617298616
Cites: Gastroenterology. 2007 Feb;132(2):763-8617258735
Cites: Endoscopy. 2007 Aug;39(8):710-417661246
Comment In: Can J Gastroenterol. 2012 Jan;26(1):15-622288067
PubMed ID
22308578 View in PubMed
Less detail

[Care in heart failure may be improved!]

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature54448
Source
Lakartidningen. 1997 Nov 26;94(48):4445
Publication Type
Article
Date
Nov-26-1997
Author
G. Johansson
Source
Lakartidningen. 1997 Nov 26;94(48):4445
Date
Nov-26-1997
Language
Swedish
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Ambulatory Care Facilities - standards
Cardiology Service, Hospital - standards
Heart Failure, Congestive - drug therapy - nursing - therapy
Humans
Patient Care Planning
Sweden
Notes
Comment On: Lakartidningen. 1997 Jun 18;94(25):2369-729229656
PubMed ID
9424538 View in PubMed
Less detail

Diabetes care: a guideline to the facilities needed to support internationally endorsed standards.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature35179
Source
Diabet Med. 1995 Sep;12(9):833-8
Publication Type
Article
Date
Sep-1995
Source
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1997 Oct 10;117(24):3538-9
Publication Type
Article
Date
Oct-10-1997
Author
A H Ranhoff
Author Affiliation
Medisinsk avdeling, Fylkessjukehuset i Kristiansund.
Source
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1997 Oct 10;117(24):3538-9
Date
Oct-10-1997
Language
Norwegian
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Aged
Ambulatory Care Facilities - standards
Geriatric Assessment
Geriatric Nursing - standards
Health Services for the Aged - standards
Humans
Norway
Questionnaires
Referral and Consultation
Rural Population
Abstract
Many aged Norwegians live in sparsely populated areas where access to geriatric assessment is limited. In 1990 a non-acute, ambulatory service was started in the Nordmøre region. This article gives a description of the project. From 1990 to 1992 19 visits were made to six municipalities by a physician and a nurse from the out-patient clinic for the elderly at the local hospital. 59 patients were referred by general practitioners--mental impairment, general loss of function and assessment of possible rehabilitation being the most common causes for referral. Ten out of 11 GPs, all of whom had referred patients, and the leading district nurses in the municipalities expressed their satisfaction with the project through a postal questionnaire.
PubMed ID
9411916 View in PubMed
Less detail

Do chiropractors adhere to guidelines for back radiographs? A study of chiropractic teaching clinics in Canada.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature159742
Source
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Oct 15;32(22):2509-14
Publication Type
Article
Date
Oct-15-2007
Author
Carlo Ammendolia
Pierre Côté
Sheilah Hogg-Johnson
Claire Bombardier
Author Affiliation
Centre for Research Expertise in Improved Disability Outcomes, University Health Network, and Institute for Work & Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. cammendo@uhnresearch.ca
Source
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Oct 15;32(22):2509-14
Date
Oct-15-2007
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Ambulatory Care Facilities - standards - utilization
Canada
Chiropractic - education - standards
Clinical Clerkship
Clinical Competence
Decision Making
Guideline Adherence - statistics & numerical data
Humans
Low Back Pain - physiopathology - radiography
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Practice Guidelines as Topic - standards
Quality of Health Care
Questionnaires
Radiography - standards - utilization
Risk assessment
Spinal Diseases - physiopathology - radiography
Spine - physiopathology - radiography
Abstract
Clinical cohort.
To measure the adherence to 3 radiography guidelines for low back pain in chiropractic teaching clinics.
Evidence-based guidelines for low back pain suggest that plain radiography should be restricted to patients with suspected serious disease. Among primary healthcare providers who can request radiographs, chiropractors are thought to have utilization rates that exceed what is recommended by practice guidelines. It is uncertain whether this gap between evidence and practice begins in undergraduate training.
We screened 1241 consecutive patients with a new episode of low back pain who presented to any of the 6 out-patient teaching clinics of the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College between January 2004 and September 2004. We collected information about red flags and radiography recommendations from patients and chiropractic trainees using self-administered questionnaires. Radiography recommendations were compared with criteria used in 3 radiography guidelines. Adherence was measured as the proportion of patients without red flags who were not recommended for radiography.
Of the 503 eligible patients, 448 (89.1%) agreed to participate in the study. Radiography was recommended for 12.3% of patients. According to the selected radiography guidelines, the proportion of patients with red flags ranged from 45.3% to 70.5%. The proportion of patients without red flags who were not recommended for radiography ranged from 89.4% (95% confidence interval, 85.5%-93.2%) to 94.7% (95% confidence interval, 90.9%-98.5%) for the selected guidelines.
The results suggest a strong adherence to radiography guidelines for patients with a new episode of low back pain who presented to chiropractic teaching clinics. Although a high proportion of patients had red flags, radiography utilization was lower than rates reported in previous studies suggesting that adherence to guidelines may help prevent unnecessary radiography.
PubMed ID
18090093 View in PubMed
Less detail

45 records – page 1 of 5.