A Comparison of Three Approaches to Patient Care Appraisal Based on Chart Review
JERZY E. HENISZ M.D.1,
PHILLIP B. GOLDBLATT M.D.2,
HULDA R. FLYNN PH.D.3, , and
VIVIAN GARRISON PH.D.4
1 Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, 34 Park St., New Haven, Conn. 06519 and Chief, Program Information and Analysis Section, Connecticut Mental Health Center, New Haven, Conn.
2 Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, 34 Park St., New Haven, Conn. 06519
3 Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, 34 Park St., New Haven, Conn. 06519
4 Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Division of Behavioral Sciences New Jersey College of Medicine and Dentistry, Newark, N.J.
The authors tested a three-level approach to auditing charts of psychiatric patients (review by clerks, research assistants, and clinical consultants) against two other methods. There were no significant differences among the three methods in scores of adequacy of patient care and adequacy of documentation. While the authors suggest the need for more research in the area of assessing quality of patient care, they believe that research assistants and other nonclinician reviewers can make a contribution to peer review.
