The Current State of Quality of Care Measurement in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Teleki, Stephanie S.; Damberg, Cheryl L.; Shaw, Rebecca; Hiatt, Liisa; Williams, Brie; Hill, Terry E.; Asch, Steven M.

doi:10.1177/1078345810397498

Cited by 6 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, to our knowledge, no other study has attempted to quantify the accuracy of electronic physician documentation using concurrent observation. The lack of literature is likely because of the challenge of data collection, the expense of concurrent observation, physician resistance to auditing, and the desire to preserve an image of physician infallibility . However, stakeholders have identified flaws in electronic health records as a serious problem.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concordance Between Electronic Clinical Documentation and Physicians’ Observed Behavior

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Key PointsQuestionHow closely does documentation in electronic health records match the review of systems and physical examination performed by emergency physicians?FindingsIn this case series of 9 licensed emergency physician trainees and 12 observers of 180 patient encounters, 38.5% of the review of systems groups and 53.2% of the physical examination systems documented in the electronic health record were corroborated by direct audiovisual or reviewed audio observation.MeaningThese findings raise the possibility that some physician documentation may not accurately represent actions taken, but further research is needed to assess this in more detail.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concordance Between Electronic Clinical Documentation and Physicians’ Observed Behavior

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After reviewing common causes of morbidity and mortality in prisons and taking into account the results of the qualitative interviews described in Damberg et al (2011) and Teleki et al (2011), 16 target topic areas were chosen for further investigation. Project staff then reviewed public sources for potential indicators in those target areas.…”

Section: Identifying Candidate Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The indicator sources are listed in Table 2. In addition, targeted interviews took place with correctional health staff in California and selected other prison systems (see Damberg et al, 2011;Teleki et al, 2011) to identify additional indicators for consideration, bringing the total of identified indicators to 1,731. Many of these indicators were too vague or did not contain sufficient detail and so were dropped from further consideration, leaving 1,069 for more detailed evaluation.…”

Section: Identifying Candidate Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a result of these meetings, the findings from the interviews described in Damberg et al (2011) and Teleki et al (2011), and internal discussions with the CDCR, we focused our review of potential indicators on common primary care processes and outcomes rather than inpatient or specialist care indicators because these were most under the direct control of the prison health system. Indicators that addressed access to inpatient and specialty care were not excluded, however.…”

Section: Identifying Candidate Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A total of 79 of the 111 proposed indicators had a final median score of 7 on validity and 4 on feasibility without disagreements and were recommended by the panel for implementation. The Appendix of Teleki et al (2011) details the full list of recommended indicators, while example indicators are shown in Table 5. The indicators selected by the panel are primarily process based, though there are indicators in all the taxonomic categories with the exception of structure (Table 6).…”

Section: Indicator Ratingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Selecting Performance Indicators for Prison Health Care

Asch

Damberg

Hiatt

et al. 2011

Journal of Correctional Health Care

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improving prison health care requires a robust measurement dashboard that addresses multiple domains of care. We sought to identify tested indicators of clinical quality and access that prison health managers could use to ascertain gaps in performance and guide quality improvement. We used the RAND/UCLA modified Delphi method to select the best indicators for correctional health. An expert panel rated 111 indicators on validity and feasibility. They voted to retain 79 indicators in areas such as access, cardiac conditions, geriatrics, infectious diseases, medication monitoring, metabolic diseases, obstetrics/gynecology, screening/prevention, psychiatric disorders/substance abuse, pulmonary conditions, and urgent conditions. Prison health institutions, like all other large health institutions, need robust measurement systems. The indicators presented here provide a basic library for prison health managers developing such systems.

show abstract

Government reports versus offenders’ experiences: toward the resolution of discrepancies in healthcare and healthcare delivery

Memarpour

Ricciardelli

Maasarjian

2015

International Journal of Prisoner Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose – Canadian literature on federal correctional institutions and prison living indicate a shortage inadequate and available healthcare services to meet the needs of the prison population, despite prisoners higher rates of health challenges (e.g. mental health, addictions, HIV/AIDS) in comparison to the general population. With fewer resources, concerns arise about the delivery, quantity, and quality of penal healthcare provision. Thus, the authors examines former prisoners’ experiences of, in comparison to government reports on, wait-times, and request processes for healthcare services, as well as issues of access, quality of interactions with healthcare professionals and the regulations and policies governing healthcare provision. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – The authors compare data gathered from interviews with 56 former-federal prisoners with publicly available Correctional Services Canada reports on healthcare delivery, staff-prisoner interactions, programmes and services, and overall physical and mental health to identify consistencies and inconsistencies between the government’s and former prisoners’ understandings of penal healthcare. Findings – Discrepancies exist between prisoners reported experiences of healthcare provision and government reports. Prisoners are dissatisfied with healthcare provision in more secure facilities or when they feel their healthcare needs are not met yet become more satisfied in less secure institutions or when their needs are eventually met. Originality/value – Theories of administrative control frame the analyses, including discrepancies between parolee experiences and Correctional Service Canada reports. Policy recommendations to improve healthcare provision are highlighted.

show abstract

The Current State of Quality of Care Measurement in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Cited by 6 publications

References 11 publications

Concordance Between Electronic Clinical Documentation and Physicians’ Observed Behavior

Concordance Between Electronic Clinical Documentation and Physicians’ Observed Behavior

Selecting Performance Indicators for Prison Health Care

Government reports versus offenders’ experiences: toward the resolution of discrepancies in healthcare and healthcare delivery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About