Steven M. Asch
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Steven M. Asch has a total of 8 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
Elizabeth A. McGlynn
From the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, and RAND Health, Santa Monica, California; and Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System and University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
1 shared publicationEve A. Kerr
From the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, and RAND Health, Santa Monica, California; and Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System and University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
1 shared publicationJoan Keesey
From the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, and RAND Health, Santa Monica, California; and Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System and University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
1 shared publicationJohn Adams
From the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, and RAND Health, Santa Monica, California; and Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System and University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
1 shared publicationLisa Rubenstein
From the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, and RAND Health, Santa Monica, California; and Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System and University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
1 shared publicationMary M. Hogan
From the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, and RAND Health, Santa Monica, California; and Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System and University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 21 December 2004
- Published by American College of Physicians in Annals of Internal Medicine
- Vol. 141 (12) , 938-945
Comparison of Quality of Care for Patients in the Veterans Health Administration and Patients in a National Sample
The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has introduced an integrated electronic medical record, performance measurement, and other system changes directed at improving care. Recent comparisons with other delivery systems have been limited to a small set of indicators. To compare the quality of VHA care with that of care in a national sample by using a comprehensive quality-of-care measure. Cross-sectional comparison. 12 VHA health care systems and 12 communities. 596 VHA patients and 992 patients identified through random-digit dialing. All were men older than 35 years of age. Between 1997 and 2000, quality was measured by using a chart-based quality instrument consisting of 348 indicators targeting 26 conditions. Results were adjusted for clustering, age, number of visits, and medical conditions. Patients from the VHA scored significantly higher for adjusted overall quality (67% vs. 51%; difference, 16 percentage points [95% CI, 14 to 18 percentage points]), chronic disease care (72% vs. 59%; difference, 13 percentage points [CI, 10 to 17 percentage points]), and preventive care (64% vs. 44%; difference, 20 percentage points [CI, 12 to 28 percentage points]), but not for acute care. The VHA advantage was most prominent in processes targeted by VHA performance measurement (66% vs. 43%; difference, 23 percentage points [CI, 21 to 26 percentage points]) and least prominent in areas unrelated to VHA performance measurement (55% vs. 50%; difference, 5 percentage points [CI, 0 to 10 percentage points]). Unmeasured residual differences in patient characteristics, a lower response rate in the national sample, and differences in documentation practices could have contributed to some of the observed differences. Patients from the VHA received higher-quality care according to a broad measure. Differences were greatest in areas where the VHA has established performance measures and actively monitors performance.
- 21 December 2004
- Published by American College of Physicians in Annals of Internal Medicine
- Vol. 141 (12) , 938-945
Comparison of Quality of Care for Patients in the Veterans Health Administration and Patients in a National Sample
The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has introduced an integrated electronic medical record, performance measurement, and other system changes directed at improving care. Recent comparisons with other delivery systems have been limited to a small set of indicators. To compare the quality of VHA care with that of care in a national sample by using a comprehensive quality-of-care measure. Cross-sectional comparison. 12 VHA health care systems and 12 communities. 596 VHA patients and 992 patients identified through random-digit dialing. All were men older than 35 years of age. Between 1997 and 2000, quality was measured by using a chart-based quality instrument consisting of 348 indicators targeting 26 conditions. Results were adjusted for clustering, age, number of visits, and medical conditions. Patients from the VHA scored significantly higher for adjusted overall quality (67% vs. 51%; difference, 16 percentage points [95% CI, 14 to 18 percentage points]), chronic disease care (72% vs. 59%; difference, 13 percentage points [CI, 10 to 17 percentage points]), and preventive care (64% vs. 44%; difference, 20 percentage points [CI, 12 to 28 percentage points]), but not for acute care. The VHA advantage was most prominent in processes targeted by VHA performance measurement (66% vs. 43%; difference, 23 percentage points [CI, 21 to 26 percentage points]) and least prominent in areas unrelated to VHA performance measurement (55% vs. 50%; difference, 5 percentage points [CI, 0 to 10 percentage points]). Unmeasured residual differences in patient characteristics, a lower response rate in the national sample, and differences in documentation practices could have contributed to some of the observed differences. Patients from the VHA received higher-quality care according to a broad measure. Differences were greatest in areas where the VHA has established performance measures and actively monitors performance.