» Articles » PMID: 7136009

The Diagnostic Evaluation of Risk Factors for Urinary Tract Stones: an Analysis of Care Patterns in Five Hospitals

Overview
Journal Yale J Biol Med
Specialty Biology
Date 1982 Mar 1
PMID 7136009
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Medical records of hospitalized primary urolithiasis patients in five Connecticut hospitals were studied to determine the aggressiveness of the diagnostic search for metabolic and other renal stone risk factors. A total of 924 patients over three years were analyzed. Routine serum, urine, and X-ray tests were generally performed according to accepted criteria. However, medical histories were generally inadequate, and 24-hour urine studies for calcium and uric acid were performed on less than half of the patients for whom they were indicated. Neither the complexity of the stone problem nor the stone event number appeared to influence the intensity of the diagnostic search in any important way. Other deficiencies included the lack of followup of abnormal test findings and the lack of treatment of problems discovered. The diagnostic approach in each hospital was stable over time.

Citing Articles

The regional educational impact of a Renal Stone Center.

Jekel J, Chauncey K, Moore N, Broadus A, Gowdy D Yale J Biol Med. 1983; 56(2):97-108.

PMID: 6636839 PMC: 2589712.

References
1.
SMITH Jr L . Symposium on stones. Introduction. Books in the running brooks, sermons in stone. Am J Med. 1968; 45(5):649-53. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9343(68)90201-5. View

2.
Williamson J . Evaluating quality of patient care. A strategy relating outcome and process assessment. JAMA. 1971; 218(4):564-9. View

3.
FESSEL W, van Brunt E . Assessing quality of care from the medical record. N Engl J Med. 1972; 286(3):134-8. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM197201202860305. View

4.
Richardson F . Methodological development of a system of medical audit. Med Care. 1972; 10(6):451-62. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-197211000-00001. View

5.
Brook R, Appel F . Quality-of-care assessment: choosing a method for peer review. N Engl J Med. 1973; 288(25):1323-9. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM197306212882504. View