Structured Implicit Review: A New Method for Monitoring Nursing Care Quality

by Marjorie L. Pearson, Jan L. Lee, Betty L. Chang, Marc N. Elliott, Katherine L. Kahn, Lisa V. Rubenstein

Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price
Add to Cart Paperback18 pages Free

BACKGROUND: Nurses' independent decisions about assessment, treatment, and nursing interventions for hospitalized patients are important determinants of quality of care. Physician peer implicit review of medical records has been central to Medicare quality management and is considered the gold standard for reviewing physician care, but peer implicit review of nursing processes of care has not received similar attention. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate nurse structured implicit review (SIR) methods. RESEARCH DESIGN: We developed SIR instruments for rating the quality of inpatient nursing care for congestive heart failure (CHF) and cerebrovascular accident (CVA). Nurse reviewers used the SIR form to rate a nationally representative sample of randomly selected medical records for each disease from 297 acute care hospitals in 5 states (collected by the RAND-HCFA Prospective Payment System study). SUBJECTS: The study subjects were elderly Medicare inpatients with CHF (n = 291) or CVA (n = 283). MEASURES: The authors developed and tested scales reflecting domains of nursing process, evaluated interrater and interitem reliability, and assessed the extent to which items and scales predicted overall ratings of the quality of nursing care. RESULTS: Interrater reliability for 14 of 16 scales (CHF) or 10 of 16 scales (CVA) was > or = 0.40. Interitem reliability was > 0.80 for all but 1 scale (both diseases). Functional Assessment, Physical Assessment, and Medication Tracking ratings were the strongest predictors of overall nursing quality ratings (P < 0.001 for each). CONCLUSIONS: Nurse peer review with SIR has adequate interrater and excellent scale reliabilities and can be a valuable tool for assessing nurse performance.

Originally published in: Medical Care, v. 38, no. 11, November 2000, pp. 1074-1091.

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.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.

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.