This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Steven A. Schroeder, MD; Andrea I. Kabcenell, RN, MPH

JAMA. 1991;265(15):1995.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In the study by Caplan et al¹ in this issue, a partial explanation of a persistent conundrum is offered. Previous research has shown that patients with serious adverse events are likely to be judged as receiving inappropriate or negligent care.^2,3 For example, in the recently published Harvard Medical Practice Study,³ negligence was identified in 51% of adverse events that resulted in death but in only 22% of events that led to minimal impairment. Was the care really poor, or did the bad outcomes influence the review process?

This study suggests that the reviewer's knowledge of the outcomes of care clouds the assessment of the process. Physician reviewers were presented with anesthesia cases from closed claims files and asked to review them for appropriateness of care using implicit criteria. Two versions of the same case were offered, identical in every respect except for the seriousness of the outcome. . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, NJ.

Footnotes
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors, and no official endorsement by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is intended or should be inferred.

Reprint requests to the Office of the President, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, PO Box 2316, Princeton, NJ 08543 (Dr Schroeder).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?