Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 319

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Administrative data based patient safety research: a critical review

Open access
Zhan, C·2003·Quality and Safety in Health Care

Abstract

Administrative data are readily available, inexpensive, computer readable, and cover large populations. Despite coding irregularities and limited clinical details, administrative data supplemented by tools such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) patient safety indicators (PSIs) could serve as a screen for potential patient safety problems that merit further investigation, offer valuable insights into adverse impacts and risks of medical errors and, to some extent, provide benchmarks for tracking progress in patient safety efforts at local, state, or national levels.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/qhc.12.suppl_2.ii58

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 319

Metadata

Authors
Zhan, C.
Venue
Quality and Safety in Health Care
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2003-12-01
Volume
12
Issue
90002
Pages
58ii-63
ISSN
  • 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-3901
OpenAlex
W2153938034
Cited by
319
References
3
FWCI
12.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Administrative data based patient safety research: a critical review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/qhc.12.suppl_2.ii58
The paper
Zhan, C. (2003). Administrative data based patient safety research: a critical review. Quality and Safety in Health Care. https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.12.suppl_2.ii58

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.