Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Medical Staff”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1990

Attitude of the medical staff towards medical record departments of general hospitals in Kuwait.

The present study was undertaken with the aim of revealing the attitude of the medical staff towards the medical record departments in the six general hospitals of Kuwait. Results showed that only 39.1% of physicians who completed the study questionnaire had ever visited the MRD. In addition, only 19.4% perceived the MRD as a health information centre, while the greater proportion of physicians regarded the department as a file room. The attitude of the medical staff towards three aspects of the MRD, namely its staff, physical conditions and performance, was elicited by requesting the physicians to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed about positive descriptions of these three aspects. Attitude was most favourable towards the MRD staff. Unavailability of a satisfactory place for visitors appeared to be the main problem related to physical conditions, such a place being regarded as satisfactory by only 15.6% of physicians. Performance of the MRD was perceived as its weakest aspect, five of its six items being accorded negative responses by over 50% of physicians. The least favourable component of performance was availability of records, only 22.2% of physicians agreeing that requested records were always available. Regarding the overall opinion about the MRD, only 10.4% of physicians rated the department as good. Statistical analysis revealed a significant difference between hospitals regarding the extent of physicians' agreement about positive descriptions of the three aspects of the department studied. It also showed that a direct correlation exists between the attitude towards performance of the department and the overall opinion about the department.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed1990

Resolving conflicting interests of medical staff and governing body in revising medical staff bylaws.

Medical staff bylaws set out the rights, duties, and responsibilities of medical staffs and their members, and define the relationship between medical staffs and hospitals and their governing bodies. Areas of conflict between medical staffs and governing bodies are commonly highlighted during the process of revising medical staff bylaws. This article identifies some of the areas of potential conflict and offers suggestions for their satisfactory resolution.

Conflict, Psychological↗
PubMed1988

Inherent powers of the hospital medical staff.

The medical staff is a self-governing, legally separate entity representing the collective professional responsibility of its members in the management and administration of medical care within the hospital. This article explores the essentials of medical staff self-governance: the development and adoption of medical staff bylaws, which may not be unilaterally amended by the governing board; the selection and removal of medical staff officers; the establishment and enforcement of standards for medical staff membership; the establishment of patient care standards; and access to independent legal counsel.

Constitution and Bylaws↗
PubMed1984

New JCAH standards affect medical staff, quality assurance.

Medical staff composition, credentialing procedures, governance, and quality assurance are the major areas affected by recent revisions in the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals' Accreditation Manual for Hospitals. The most controversial revision expands the definition of the medical staff to include not only physicians and dentists but also other nonphysician practitioners. Much of this controversy is unwarranted, however, because the standard is purely permissive; no hospital is required to change its medical staff composition if it chooses not to. Institutions are now permitted, if not encouraged, to examine specific classes or categories of providers and to determine the appropriateness of their practice within the hospital setting. Criteria for granting staff membership or clinical privileges must be developed for each category. Mechanisms for appointing medical staff members and for granting clinical privileges must be "hospital-specific"; each hospital; even those within the same system, chain, or geographic area, must have separate and distinct policies and guidelines for decision making in the credentialing process. The credentialing mechanism also must be "described to each applicant." The phrases "ethical criteria," "ethical pledge," and "ethical standards" have been completely dropped from the accreditation requirements. The previous standards subjected both the JCAH and the hospital to liability hazards. The newer standards not only eliminate the potential liability associated with the adoption of a particular code of ethics but also give the hospital greater latitude in enforcement, since the institution is not limited to a particular codification of principles or religious ethics. The medical executive committee's (MEC's) role and composition have also been redefined.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Accreditation↗
PubMed2002

Important clinical outcomes in urogynecology: views of patients, nurses and medical staff.

We attempted to grade treatment outcomes in female urinary incontinence by the perceived importance of these outcomes for patients, nursing staff and medical staff. One hundred millimeter visual analog scales (VAS) quantifying the relative importance of five clinical outcomes were sent to 100 patients, 50 nursing staff and 135 medical staff involved in continence care and median VAS scores for each outcome were compared between groups. Subjective improvement and improvement in quality of life were rated most highly. Median scores for subjective cure were 93 (76-99) for nurses, 93 (11-100) for patients and 91 (50-100) for ICS (UK) members. Median quality of life improvement scores were 92 (67-100), 93 (3-100) and 93 (74-100), respectively (not significant). There was a striking concordance of opinion regarding the importance of subjective improvement and improvement in quality of life. We suggest that these should become primary outcome measures in all future clinical trials and audits of incontinence treatments.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗