Professional Standards Review Organization Program Research Articles

PSRO—Quality control? Or gimmickry?

The implementation of quality control programs of health care service requires a technology no less complex than that of the quality control program itself. Previous efforts to implement programs where health care practitioners are truly accountable have foundered on: 1. The lack of enthusiasm of major third party payers, 2. The functional inadequacies of Medicare utilization review committees, and 3. The conflict of interests of medical societies. For the Professional Standards Review Organizations (PSRO) to be effective rather than ceremonial, evaluation that is arm's length between evaluator and practitioner is indispensable. The PSRO is the last chance for organized medicine to demonstrate that it can and will control those practitioners who habitually do violence to its ethical and professional norms. The paper lists other options should the presently structured PSRO program fail.

Evaluating the impact of physician peer review: factors associated with successful PSROs.

A five-component measurement method was developed and applied to the 1981 impact statements of 30 Professional Standards Review Organizations (PSROs) by four blind raters familiar with the PSRO program. High inter-rater reliability (.95) was achieved. Rater's scores for each PSRO were then averaged and regressed against five variables predicted to affect PSRO impact: geographical density of PSROs; PSRO affiliation with a medical society; surgical necessity review; use of data profiles; and pre-existing Medicare hospitalization rates. As a set, the variables accounted for 44 per cent of the variance in PSRO performance (p less than .05). When entered in stepwise regression, geographical density and use of surgical necessity review accounted for the largest share of the variance. The findings are believed to reflect the recency of PSRO motivation to demonstrate significant impact, and the value of surgical necessity review as an indicator of PSRO courage to risk unpleasant backlash from their medical communities.

Developing useful evaluations: A case history and some practical guidelines

AbstractInstitutional factors that constrain the Congress's use of evaluation research are illustrated by a case history of congressional deliberations about the Professional Standards Review Organization program, and concrete guidelines are offered for evaluators.

PSRO: The Promise, Perspective, and Potential

The Professional Standards Review Organizations (PSROs), regardless of their tenuous current or future status, are unique experiments in partnership between physicians and the federal government. Federal financing of groups of professionals to permit them to conduct programs on self-regulation of hospital utilization and quality of hospital services is an unparalleled concept. Although the PSRO concept and the evolution of the program offer rich opportunities to explore the dynamics of a governmental partnership with practicing physicians, this book is of value primarily for its historical perspective on the range of PSRO activities during the late 1970s. Bussman and Davidson have managed to gather an extremely knowledgeable group of contributors, each of whom is able to describe in detail aspects of the history of the PSRO program, the function of the PSROs, and the potential future for expansion of the PSRO concept. Unfortunately, however, the book was badly outdated from the moment

The Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol

A major national health policy objective is to improve the efficiency of hospital utilization. To evaluate programmatic interventions with this objective, such as the Professional Standards Review Organization program, measures of appropriate use are a fundamental need. This report represents the results of two developmental trials of a new technique, labeled the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol (AEP), for assessing potentially unnecessary hospital days of care. Twenty-seven objective criteria items related to medical services, nursing/life support services and patient condition factors were incorporated in the protocol. If any one of the criteria was met, the day was deemed "appropriate," and if none was met, the day was deemed "inappropriate" at an acute hospital level of care. A reviewer could override the objective criteria in either direction in reaching a final judgment. Three reviewers, two nurses and one physician each reviewed 200 charts at a teaching hospital. After correcting for a small number of abstracting errors, overall agreement rates between pairs of reviewers ranged from 92 to 94 per cent, levels significant p less than 0.0001. Of all cases judged inappropriate by at least one of the reviewers, specific agreement rates for the reviewer pairs on which days were inappropriate ranged from 73 to 79 per cent. These overall agreement rates and specific agreement rates on days of care judged as inappropriate are higher than those of any previously reported assessment methods. A parallel study of the appropriateness of admissions in these same cases, using purely subjective reviewer judgments, found overall agreement rates averaging 90 per cent, but rates of specific agreement on inappropriate admissions were less than 40 per cent between pairs of reviewers. Along with comparisons to other, more subjective, assessment techniques, this finding suggests that objective criteria are a vital element in developing methodologically sound techniques for assessing appropriate hospital use.

Professional Standards Review Organizations and confidentiality: the question of public access to medical peer review data through the Freedom of Information Act.

The degree of confidentiality to be accorded data gathered and analyzed by Professional Standards Review Organizations (PSROs) in the course of their medical peer review activities is a crucial and controversial issue in health policy. In late 1977, a consumer organization in Washington, D.C. sought access to data in the hands of the local PSRO through a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act, touching off a continuing debate throughout the country. That lawsuit is now on appeal. The courts, the Congress, and the Department of Health and Human Services have all been involved in the ongoing controversy. PSROs, practicing physicians, and health care consumers all have an interest in the outcome. This article analyzes the PSRO Program and its data confidentiality problems, examines in detail the lawsuit that sparked the controversy, and assesses the overall impact of this case on the PSRO program and on federal regulation of the health care system in general.

The relationship of community mental health centers to the professional standards review organizations program.

Given the realities of the professional standards review organization (PSRO) program and the necessity for accountability on the part of all health service providers, community mental health centers (CMHCs) should begin now to take an active role in planning their involvement in the PSRO program. The author points out the need for both psychiatrists and nonphysician professionals to become involved. There are many types of mental health services delivered in a given area, and the active involvement of CMHCs can be a major determinant of the shape and direction of this impact.

A Cost Benefit Analysis of Continued Stay Certification

A large portion of the resources of the Professional Standards Review Organization Program have been directed toward the review of inpatients to determine their need for continued hospitalization. The primary goal of this review process is the containment of hospital costs through the elimination of unnecessary patient hospitalization. A cost benefit analysis of this review process shows that the potential financial savings accrued are unlikely to offset the costs associated with the review procedure.

Professionalism and accountability. Controlling health services in the United States and West Germany.

This paper examines the new Professional Standards Review Organizations (PSROs) program in light of a similar program ("Economic Monitoring") that has been used in West Germany for over forty years. In the first section the PSRO program is described as government-mandated peer review by professional organizations, and is compared with that of the West Germany system. The second section argues that the PSROs are likely to strengthen the organization of established medicine, to increase the bargaining power of professional organizations, and to further insulate professional behavior from public scrutiny. The third section describes some of the effects of bureaucratic rigidities in peer review on the practice of medicine: the preservation of old technologies, the development of fixed patterns of practice, and the strengthening of the technical and interventionist biases in medical care. The final section evaluates the PSRO program as a complete delegation of congressional authority and a failure of Congress to set any rules for the development and application of norms and standards. The lack of any mechanism for accountability of the PSROs to public and choices is emphasized.

Quality of health care for the disadvantaged

Literature review points out that: (a) differentials in health status between the disadvantaged and the nondisadvantaged persist, often to a large degree; (b) differentials in the overall amount of care received are less striking now than heretofore, but standardization by level of need demonstrates measurable discrepancies in health services provided to the disadvantaged compared with the nondisadvantaged; (c) the quality of health care for the disadvantaged is not strikingly poorer than care for the nondisadvantaged, but, in view of demonstrable shortcomings in the quality of health care in general, this is not viewed as a positive statement; and (d) attempts to improve quality of care for the disadvantaged have not had the hoped-for impact. Four new avenues are suggested for possible further research; increased patient responsibility, increased consumer knowledge, financial accountability, and quality assurance activities. Because of the likelihood of only marginal changes in health status, rigorous evaluation of any experimental program is emphasized. During the last decade, many attempts have been made by private and governmental bodies to improve the health of the American people. In general, these efforts have focused on improving the health of members of disadvantaged groups and have included such diverse activities as building OEO health centers, developing maternal and infant care programs, and financing care for the elderly. During the last few years, a different movement, concerned with assuring high quality care for all people, has produced efforts such as quality assurance activities in health maintenance organizations, the Professional Standards Review Organization program, and the medical care evaluation program of the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospitals. Consideration of these two issues, i.e., improving the health of disadvantaged groups and improving the quality of care for all people, has led to two policy-relevant questions: "Can the health of disadvantaged groups be substantially improved by assuring that a high level quality of care is delivered to them?" and "Can the quality of care delivered to disadvantaged groups be improved?" The purpose of this paper is to review some available data pertinent to both these issues and to suggest some ideas for future research.

PSRO-future impact on community mental health centers

In November 1972 Congress passed P.L. 92-603 creating Professional Standards Review Organizations (PSROs) to involve practicing physicians and other health care professionals in the ongoing review and evaluation of health care services funded through Medicare, Medicaid, and maternal and child health programs. This paper examines the requirements and components of the PSRO program, the mandate for nonphysician peer review, and future implications for mental health facilities including community mental health centers. With the eventual review of community mental health centers by PSRO's, centers must begin plans for implementing review programs that evaluate the necessity, the quality, and the cost of services.

PSRO--quality control? Or gimmickry?

The implementation of quality control programs of health care service requires a technology no less complex than that of the quality control program itself. Previous efforts to implement programs where health care practitioners are truly accountable have foundered on: 1. The lack of enthusiasm of major third party payers, 2. The functional inadequacies of Medicare utilization review committees, and 3. The conflict of interests of medical societies. For the Professional Standards Review Organizations (PSRO) to be effective rather than ceremonial, evaluation that is arm's length between evaluator and practitioner is indispensable. The PSRO is the last chance for organized medicine to demonstrate that it can and will control those practitioners who habitually do violence to its ethical and professional norms. The paper lists other options should the presently structured PSRO program fail.