Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Concurrent drug utilization review refers to conducting the review concurrently with the process of dispensing medication for patients. [11] It means that the dispensing process will stop if a potential problem occurs and it is found by the review.
Utilization management (UM) or utilization review is the use of managed care techniques such as prior authorization that allow payers, particularly health insurance companies, to manage the cost of health care benefits by assessing its medical appropriateness before it is provided, by using evidence-based criteria or guidelines.
A well-known example of this phenomenon is Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. (1944). [1] [2] Concurring opinions may be held by courts but not expressed: in many legal systems the court "speaks with one voice" and thus any concurring or dissenting opinions are not reported.
Although concurrent and predictive validity are similar, it is cautioned to keep the terms and findings separated. "Concurrent validity should not be used as a substitute for predictive validity without an appropriate supporting rationale." [3] Criterion validity is typically assessed by comparison with a gold standard test. [4]
An after action review (AAR) is a technique for improving process and execution by analyzing the intended outcome and actual outcome of an action and identifying practices to sustain, and practices to improve or initiate, and then practicing those changes at the next iteration of the action [1] [2] AARs in the formal sense were originally developed by the U.S. Army. [3]
Concurrent validity is a type of evidence that can be gathered to defend the use of a test for predicting other outcomes. It is a parameter used in sociology, psychology, and other psychometric or behavioral sciences. Concurrent validity is demonstrated when a test correlates well with a measure that has previously been validated. The two ...
Suppose for example that the accused accidentally injures a pedestrian while driving. Aware of the collision, the accused rushes from the car only to find that the victim is a hated enemy. At this point, the accused joyfully proclaims his pleasure at having caused the injury. The conventional rule is that no crime has been committed.
A recent review by McDowell reveals that Herrnstein's original equation fails to accurately describe concurrent-schedule data under a substantial range of conditions. Three deviations from matching have been observed: undermatching, overmatching, and bias. Undermatching means that the response proportions are less extreme than the law predicts.