Titlebook: Evaluating Critical Care; Using Health Service William J. Sibbald (Professor of Medicine, Physici Book 2002 Springer Science+Business Media

憤世嫉俗者

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40826-7mined include mortality, complication rates, hospital and ICU length of stay, staffing level, or the use of treatment resources. A simple comparison of these outcomes, however, is frequently unsatisfactory because the characteristics of patients treated in different ICUs are not the same. In additio

Eructation

bypass

Economic Growth and Developmente search for a link between the ability to discover with the ability to produce. As Cresson puts it “we are moving from research based on performance for its sake, to research which focuses on the social and economic problems which face society today” [.]. Health care, seen from the point of view of

–吃

RECUR

Ganglion

etermining the optimal number of beds and human resources to provide care to the critically ill patient, there is little, if any, substantive evidence that decision makers at the local hospital, regional, or system level appeal to the findings of scientific research to guide them in their decision m

ALIEN

Andrea Gatto,Elkhan Richard Sadik-Zadar the sampling error of personal experience. From the phenomenon of risk-adjustment and the utility of car seat-belts [.] to the unreliability of clinical risk estimation [.], opinion alone provides an insecure foundation on which to construct decisions.

金盤是高原

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-08083-9ust often be based upon a simultaneous evaluation of clinical outcome and resource consumption. By regarding intensive care medicine as a process, such evaluations can become an important part of a quality improvement process: evaluation of quality (process/outcome) — assessment of expenditures — im

事與愿違

使顯得不重要

William J. Sibbald (Professor of Medicine, PhysiciIncludes supplementary material: