Reciprocal peer review for quality improvement: an ethnographic case study of the Improving Lung Cancer Outcomes Project-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Reciprocal peer review for quality improvement: an ethnographic case study of the Improving Lung Cancer Outcomes Project

Published:2012-08-09 Issue:12 Volume:21 Page:1034-1041
ISSN:2044-5415
Container-title:BMJ Quality & Safety
language:en
Short-container-title:BMJ Qual Saf

Author:

Aveling Emma-Louise,Martin Graham,Jiménez García Senai,Martin Lisa,Herbert Georgia,Armstrong Natalie,Dixon-Woods Mary,Woolhouse Ian

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

Health Policy

Reference17 articles.

1. Why is U.K. medicine no longer a self-regulating profession? The role of scandals involving ‘bad apple’ doctors;Dixon-Woods;Soc Sci Med,2011

2. Auditing and the production of legitimacy;Power;Account Org Soc,2003

3. Regulation Inside Government

4. Physician participation in quality management. Expanding the goals of peer review to detect both practitioner and system error;Graber;Jt Comm J Qual Improv,1999

5. Setting up interdepartmental peer-review—the British-Thoracic-Society Scheme;Page;J R Coll Physicians Lond,1995

Cited by 24 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Health-care organization characteristics in cancer care delivery: an integrated conceptual framework with content validation;JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute;2024-02-28

2. Development of clinically meaningful quality indicators for contemporary lung cancer care, and piloting and evaluation in a retrospective cohort; experiences of the Embedding Research (and Evidence) in Cancer Healthcare (EnRICH) Program;BMJ Open;2024-02

3. Collaboration-Based Approaches;2022-08-17

4. Development of an Australia and New Zealand Lung Cancer Clinical Quality Registry: a protocol paper;BMJ Open;2022-08

5. Peer Review Processes for Quality Improvement in Health Care Settings and Their Implications for Health Care Professionals;Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions;2021-11-17