Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 289–296 | Cite as

Sources of Variation in Physician Adherence with Clinical Guidelines: Results from a Factorial Experiment

  • J. B. McKinlay
  • C. L. Link
  • K. M. Freund
  • L. D. Marceau
  • A. B. O’Donnell
  • K. L. Lutfey
Original Article

Background

Health services research has documented the magnitude of health care variations. Few studies focus on provider level sources of variation in clinical decision making-for example, which primary care providers are likely to follow clinical guidelines, with which types of patient.

Objectives

To estimate: (1) the extent of primary care provider adherence to practice guidelines and the unconfounded influence of (2) patient attributes and (3) physician characteristics on adherence with clinical practice guidelines.

Design

In a factorial experiment, primary care providers were shown clinically authentic video vignettes with actors portrayed different “patients” with identical signs of coronary heart disease (CHD). Different types of providers were asked how they would manage the different “patients” with identical CHD symptoms. Measures were taken to protect external validity.

Results

Adherence to some guidelines is high (over 50% of physicians would follow a third of the recommended actions), yet there is low adherence to many of them (less than 20% would follow another third). Female patients are less likely than males to receive 4 of 5 types of physical examination (p < .03); older patients are less likely to be advised to stop smoking (p < .03). Race and SES of patients had no effect on provider adherence to guidelines. A physicians’ level of experience (age) appears to be important with certain patients.

Conclusions

Physician adherence with guidelines varies with different types of “patient” and with the length of clinical experience. With this evidence it is possible to appropriately target interventions to reduce health care variations by improving physician adherence with clinical guidelines.

Key words

clinical decision making guidelines disparities 

References

  1. 1.
    Feldman HA, McKinlay JB, Potter DA, Freund KM, Burns RB, Moskowitz MA. Non-medical influences on medical decision making: an experimental technique using videotapes, factorial design, and survey Sampling. Health Serv Res. 1997;32(3):343–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McKinlay JB, Burns R, Feldman HA, et al. Physician variably and uncertainty in the management of breast cancer. Med Care. 1998;36(3):385–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McKinlay JB, Lin T, Freund K, Moskowitz M. The unexpected influence of physician attributes on clinical decisions: results of an experiment. J Health Soc Behav. 2002;43(1):92–106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(26):2635–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grant RW, Buse JB, Meigs JB. University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) diabetes benchmarking project team. Diabetes Care. 2005; 28:337–442.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fisher RA. Statistical Methods, Experimental Design and Scientific Inference. New York: Oxford University Press; 1990.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cochran WG, Cox CM. Experimental Designs. New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc; 1957.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    McKinlay JB, Link CL, Arber S, Marceau L, O’Donnell AB, Adams A. How do doctors in different countries manage the same patient? Results of a factorial experiment. Health Serv Res. 2006;41(6):2182–200.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    PASS (Power Analysis and Sample Size). Kaysville, UT: NCSS; 2005.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rhoades DR, McFarland KF, Finch WH, Johnson AO. Speaking and interruptions during primary care office visits. Fam Med. 2001;33(7):528–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cohen JW, Krauss NA. Spending and service use among people with the fifteen most costly medical conditions. Health Affs. 2003;22(2):129–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gibbons RJ, Chatterjee K, Daley J, et al. ACC/AHA/ACP-ASIM guidelines for the management of patients with chronic stable angina: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Patients With Chronic Stable Angina). J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33(7):2092–197.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gibbons RJ, Chatterjee K, Daley J, et al. ACC/AHA/ACP-ASIM guidelines for the management of patients with chronic stable angina: executive summary and recommendations. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Patients with Chronic Stable Angina). Circulation. 1999;99(21):2829–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    UKPDS Study Group. Intensive blood glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes. Lancet. 1998;352:837–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Saaddine JB, Engelgau MM, Beckles GL, Gregg EW, Thompson TJ, Narayan KM. A diabetes report card for the United States: quality of care in the 1990s. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136(8):565–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Udvarhelyi IS, Gatsonis C, Epstein AM, Pashos CL, Newhouse JP, McNeil BJ. Acute myocardial infarction in the Medicare population. JAMA. 1992;268:2530–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kostis JB, Wilson AC, O’Dowd K, et al. Coronary heart disease/myocardial infarction: sex differences in the management and long-term outcome of acute myocardial infarction: a statewide study. Circulation. 1994;90:1715–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weitzman S, Cooper L, Chambless L, et al. Sex, racial, and geographic differences in the performance of cardiac diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for hospitalized acute myocardial infarction in four states. Am J Cardiol. 1997;79:722–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Coronado BE, Griffith JL, Beshansky JR, Selker HP. Hospital mortality in women and men with acute cardiac ischemia: a prospective multicenter study. JACC. 1997;29(7):1490–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maynard C, Every N, Martin JS, Kudenchuk PJ, Weaver WD. Association of sex and survival in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157(12):1379–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kober L, Torp-Pedersen C, Ottesen M, Rasmussen S, Lessing M, Skagen K. Influence of sex on short- and long-term mortality after acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 1996;77(12):1052–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wilkinson P, Laji K, Ranjadayalan K, Parsons L, Timmis A. Acute myocardial infarction in women: survival analysis in first six months. BMJ. 1994;309(6954):566–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Freund KM, D’Agostino RB, Belanger AJ, Kannel WB, Stokes J 3rd. Predictors of smoking cessation: the Framingham Study. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;135(9):957–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McKinlay J. Some contributions from the social system to gender inequalities in heart disease. J Health Soc Behav. 1996;37:1–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hirsch IB. The Burden of Diabetes Care. Diab Care. 2003;26:1613–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Silliman, RA. Crossing the quality chasm in breast cancer care. J Clin Onc. 2004;22(18):3654–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Broedl UC, Geiss HC, Parhofer KG. Comparison of current guidelines for primary prevention of coronary heart disease: risk assessment and lipid-lowering therapy. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;8(3):190–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. B. McKinlay
    • 1
    • 3
  • C. L. Link
    • 1
  • K. M. Freund
    • 2
  • L. D. Marceau
    • 1
  • A. B. O’Donnell
    • 1
  • K. L. Lutfey
    • 1
  1. 1.New England Research InstitutesWatertownUSA
  2. 2.Women’s Health Unit, Evans Department of Medicine, and Women’s Health Interdisciplinary Research CenterBoston University School of MedicineBostonUSA
  3. 3.Institute for Community Health StudiesNew England Research InstitutesWatertownUSA

Personalised recommendations