Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Quality of care assessment: policy relevant issues

  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reviews the quality assessment literature, presents a study which compares five different methods of assessing quality of care, and proposes policy recommendations. Results are: (1) Most quality assessment issues are a century old. (2) The results of assessment of quality of care are dependent on the method used; therefore, more methodologic research is needed. (3) The use of lists of criteria, concerning what a physician does, to assess quality of care could result in decreased efficiency in the health system by requiring the performance of ineffective procedures. (4) It is not certain that examination of the level of care rendered will increase the health level of the population; therefore, any national program which assesses quality of care must be prospectively evaluated. (5) A quality assessment system must be concerned with both the population who received services at the institution, and the population who did not but for whom the institution is responsible.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Public Law 92-603, 92nd Congress of the United States of America, H.R. 1, October 30, 1972. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 101–114.

  2. Brook, R. H., and Appel, F. A., “Quality of Care Assessment: Choosing a Method for Peer Review.” N. Engl. J. Med. 288, 1323–1329 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Nightingale, F., “Mortality of the British Army at Home and Abroad and During the Russian War as Compared with the Mortality of the Civil Population in England.” Reprinted from Report of the Commission Appointed to Inquire into the Regulations Affecting the Sanitary State of the Army, London, Harrison and Sons, 1858.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Nightingale, F., Proposal for Improved Statistics of Surgical Operations, London, Savill and Edwards, 1863.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Nightingale, F., Hospital Statistics and Hospital Plans, London, England, Emily and Faithfull, 1862.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Groves, E. W., “A Plea for a Uniform Registration of Operation Results.” Brit. Med. J. 2, 1008–1009 (1908).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Codman, E. A., “The Product of a Hospital.” Surg. Gyn. Obst., pp. 4913–494, April, 1914.

  8. Flexner, A., Medical Education in the United States and Canada, A report to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Bulletin No. 4, Boston, D.B. Updike, The Merrymount Press, 1910.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Mather, N. G., Pearson, N. G., Reed, K. L. Q., et al., “Acute Myocardial Infarction: Home and Hospital Treatment.” Br. Med. J. 3, 334–338 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  10. University Group Diabetes Program, “A Study of the Effects of Hypoglycemic Agents on Vascular Complications in Patients with Adult Onset Diabetes.” J. Amer. Med. Ass. 19, Suppl. 2 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chant, A. D. B., Jones, H. O., and Weddell, J. M., “Varicose Veins a Comparison of Surgery and Injection/Compression Sclerotherapy.” Lancet ii, 1188–1191 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Piachaud, D., and Weddell, J. M., “Cost of Treating Varicose Veins.” Lancet ii, 1191–1192 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Walton, J., “Discipline, Methods and Community Power: A Note on the Sociology of Knowledge.” Amer. Sociol. Rev. 31, 684–689 (1966).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Galbraith, J. K., Economics, Peace, and Laughter, New York, Signet Classics, 1972, pp. 17–18.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Brook, R. H., Quality of Care Assessment: Comparison of Five Methods of Peer Review, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973 (available from Office of Scientific and Technical Information, National Center for Health Services Research and Development, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland, 20852).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Uniform Hospital Abstract: Minimum Basic Data Set. National Center for Health Statistics, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, 1972, DHEW Pub. No. HSM 73-1451.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA

    Robert H. Brook M.D., Sc.D.

Authors
  1. Robert H. Brook M.D., Sc.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

From the Carnegie-Commonwealth Clinical Scholar Program of the Johns Hopkins University.

Supported in part by grants 5R01HS00110 and 5T01HS00112 from the National Center for Health Services Research and Development and by the Carnegie Corporation and Commonwealth Fund. Dr. Brook was a Carnegie-Commonwealth Clinical Scholar and is now a Commissioned Officer in the U.S. Public Health Service stationed at the National Center for Health Services Research and Development. This paper does not represent the official position of this agency.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brook, R.H. Quality of care assessment: policy relevant issues. Policy Sci 5, 317–341 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00144289

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00144289

Keywords

Search

Navigation