scholarly journals Trauma Patient Outcome Evaluation of Trauma and Nontrauma Centers

2001 ◽  
Vol 16 (S2) ◽  
pp. S121-S121
Author(s):  
Kum S. Ham
2005 ◽  
Vol 129 (1) ◽  
pp. 122-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick R. Norris ◽  
John A. Morris ◽  
Asli Ozdas ◽  
Eric L. Grogan ◽  
Anna E. Williams

2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 410-411
Author(s):  
Laura M. Criddle ◽  
Jeffery Walker ◽  
Deborah Eldredge

2000 ◽  
Vol 165 (11) ◽  
pp. 867-869 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shawn F. Taylor ◽  
Bernard J. Kopchinski ◽  
Martin A. Schreiber ◽  
Lillie Singleton

1986 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 302-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim J. Sveska ◽  
Bruce D. Roffe ◽  
David K. Solomon

A quality assurance (QA) technique that measured process and outcome was tested on a clinical pharmacokinetic dosing service (CPDS). The process measurement criteria evaluated the CPDS pharmacists' ability to maintain serum aminoglycoside levels within the desired range (peak 6–10 μg/ml, trough <2.0 μg/ml). The outcome measurement criteria evaluated the patients' clinical response to the aminoglycoside therapy based on changes in the patients' temperature, white blood cell count, bacterial cultures, and other variables. The process evaluation found that in a majority of the patients (80 percent), the CPDS pharmacist was performing at a level exceeding the process criteria. The outcome evaluation found that in a majority of the patients (76 percent), the therapeutic outcome criteria were not met. Statistical analysis using Spearman's Rho was not able to relate process and outcome measures significantly (p>0.05). The patient outcome criteria may not have accurately measured patient outcome because of inflexibility, not measuring other patient variables, and the lack of a subjective component. Validation of the QA technique was not possible in this study.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document