Watching the Doctor-Watchers: How Well do Peer Review Organization Methods Detect Hospital Care Quality Problems?

by Haya R. Rubin, William H. Rogers, Katherine L. Kahn, Lisa V. Rubenstein, Robert H. Brook


Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price
Add to Cart Paperback6 pages Free

The Peer Review Improvement Act of 1982 called upon the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) to ensure quality of care within the Medicare program. HCFA contracts with peer review organizations (PROs) in each state to monitor the quality of hospital care for Medicare patients. This study aims to determine how well one state's PRO judged the quality of hospital care compared with an independent, credible judgment of quality of care. A common feature of PROs is the random audit of hospital records for possible problems using six categories of generic quality screens performed by nurses to identify records for further review by a physician. These six categories are (1) adequacy of discharge planning, (2) medical stability at discharge, (3) death, (4) nosocomial infection, (5) unscheduled return to surgery, and (6) trauma in the hospital. Using the specific screens in these categories as well as others that they may add if they like, the PROs identify medical records to refer to physicians to determine if there is a quality problem.

Originally published in: Journal of the American Medical Association, v. 267, no. 17, May 6, 1992, pp. 2349-2354.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation Reprint series. The Reprint was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1992 to 2011 that represented previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see External Publications.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.