The Experts below are selected from a list of 521445 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Karen Johnson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
national quality forum guidelines for evaluating the Scientific acceptability of risk adjusted clinical outcome measures a report from the national quality forum Scientific Methods panel
Annals of Surgery, 2020Co-Authors: Laurent G Glance, David R Nerenz, David Cella, Karen Johnson, Karen Joynt E Maddox, Bijan J Borah, Joseph Kunisch, Paul Kurlansky, Jennifer Perloff, Michael A StotoAbstract:: Quality measurement is at the heart of efforts to achieve high-quality surgical and medical care at a lower cost. Without accurate quality measures, it is not possible to appropriately align incentives with quality. The aim of these National Quality Forum (NQF) guidelines is to provide measure developers and other stakeholders with guidance on the standards used by the NQF to evaluate the Scientific acceptability of performance measures. Using a methodologically rigorous and transparent process for evaluating health care quality measures is the best insurance that alternative payment plans will truly reward and promote higher quality care. Performance measures need to be credible in order for physicians and hospitals to willingly partner with payers in efforts to improve population outcomes. Our goal in creating this position paper is to promote the transparency of NQF evaluations, improve the quality of performance measurements, and engage surgeons and all other stakeholders to work together to advance the science of performance measurement.
-
the nqf Scientific Methods panel enhancing the review and endorsement process for performance measures
American Journal of Medical Quality, 2020Co-Authors: David R Nerenz, David Cella, Lacy Fabian, Eugene Nuccio, John Bott, Matt J Austin, Samuel E Simon, Jack Needleman, Karen JohnsonAbstract:In the summer of 2017, the National Quality Forum (NQF) announced the formation of a Scientific Methods Panel (hereafter referred to as “the Panel”) as part of a redesign of its endorsement process...
David R Nerenz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
national quality forum guidelines for evaluating the Scientific acceptability of risk adjusted clinical outcome measures a report from the national quality forum Scientific Methods panel
Annals of Surgery, 2020Co-Authors: Laurent G Glance, David R Nerenz, David Cella, Karen Johnson, Karen Joynt E Maddox, Bijan J Borah, Joseph Kunisch, Paul Kurlansky, Jennifer Perloff, Michael A StotoAbstract:: Quality measurement is at the heart of efforts to achieve high-quality surgical and medical care at a lower cost. Without accurate quality measures, it is not possible to appropriately align incentives with quality. The aim of these National Quality Forum (NQF) guidelines is to provide measure developers and other stakeholders with guidance on the standards used by the NQF to evaluate the Scientific acceptability of performance measures. Using a methodologically rigorous and transparent process for evaluating health care quality measures is the best insurance that alternative payment plans will truly reward and promote higher quality care. Performance measures need to be credible in order for physicians and hospitals to willingly partner with payers in efforts to improve population outcomes. Our goal in creating this position paper is to promote the transparency of NQF evaluations, improve the quality of performance measurements, and engage surgeons and all other stakeholders to work together to advance the science of performance measurement.
-
the nqf Scientific Methods panel enhancing the review and endorsement process for performance measures
American Journal of Medical Quality, 2020Co-Authors: David R Nerenz, David Cella, Lacy Fabian, Eugene Nuccio, John Bott, Matt J Austin, Samuel E Simon, Jack Needleman, Karen JohnsonAbstract:In the summer of 2017, the National Quality Forum (NQF) announced the formation of a Scientific Methods Panel (hereafter referred to as “the Panel”) as part of a redesign of its endorsement process...
Michael A Stoto - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
national quality forum guidelines for evaluating the Scientific acceptability of risk adjusted clinical outcome measures a report from the national quality forum Scientific Methods panel
Annals of Surgery, 2020Co-Authors: Laurent G Glance, David R Nerenz, David Cella, Karen Johnson, Karen Joynt E Maddox, Bijan J Borah, Joseph Kunisch, Paul Kurlansky, Jennifer Perloff, Michael A StotoAbstract:: Quality measurement is at the heart of efforts to achieve high-quality surgical and medical care at a lower cost. Without accurate quality measures, it is not possible to appropriately align incentives with quality. The aim of these National Quality Forum (NQF) guidelines is to provide measure developers and other stakeholders with guidance on the standards used by the NQF to evaluate the Scientific acceptability of performance measures. Using a methodologically rigorous and transparent process for evaluating health care quality measures is the best insurance that alternative payment plans will truly reward and promote higher quality care. Performance measures need to be credible in order for physicians and hospitals to willingly partner with payers in efforts to improve population outcomes. Our goal in creating this position paper is to promote the transparency of NQF evaluations, improve the quality of performance measurements, and engage surgeons and all other stakeholders to work together to advance the science of performance measurement.
David Cella - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
national quality forum guidelines for evaluating the Scientific acceptability of risk adjusted clinical outcome measures a report from the national quality forum Scientific Methods panel
Annals of Surgery, 2020Co-Authors: Laurent G Glance, David R Nerenz, David Cella, Karen Johnson, Karen Joynt E Maddox, Bijan J Borah, Joseph Kunisch, Paul Kurlansky, Jennifer Perloff, Michael A StotoAbstract:: Quality measurement is at the heart of efforts to achieve high-quality surgical and medical care at a lower cost. Without accurate quality measures, it is not possible to appropriately align incentives with quality. The aim of these National Quality Forum (NQF) guidelines is to provide measure developers and other stakeholders with guidance on the standards used by the NQF to evaluate the Scientific acceptability of performance measures. Using a methodologically rigorous and transparent process for evaluating health care quality measures is the best insurance that alternative payment plans will truly reward and promote higher quality care. Performance measures need to be credible in order for physicians and hospitals to willingly partner with payers in efforts to improve population outcomes. Our goal in creating this position paper is to promote the transparency of NQF evaluations, improve the quality of performance measurements, and engage surgeons and all other stakeholders to work together to advance the science of performance measurement.
-
the nqf Scientific Methods panel enhancing the review and endorsement process for performance measures
American Journal of Medical Quality, 2020Co-Authors: David R Nerenz, David Cella, Lacy Fabian, Eugene Nuccio, John Bott, Matt J Austin, Samuel E Simon, Jack Needleman, Karen JohnsonAbstract:In the summer of 2017, the National Quality Forum (NQF) announced the formation of a Scientific Methods Panel (hereafter referred to as “the Panel”) as part of a redesign of its endorsement process...
Karen R Harris - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
research in special education Scientific Methods and evidence based practices
Exceptional Children, 2005Co-Authors: Samuel L Odom, Ellen Brantlinger, Russell Gersten, Robert H Horner, Bruce Thompson, Karen R HarrisAbstract:This article sets the context for the development of research quality indicators and guidelines for evidence of effective practices provided by different methodologies. The current conceptualization of Scientific research in education and the complexity of conducting research in special education settings underlie the development of quality indicators. Programs of research in special education may be viewed as occurring in stages: moving from initial descriptive research, to experimental causal research, to finally research that examines the processes that might affect wide-scale adoption and use of a practice. At each stage, different research questions are relevant, and different research methodologies to address the research questions are needed.
