Improving the quality of medical care: the normativity of evidence-based performance standards
- 383 Downloads
Poor quality medical care is sometimes attributed to physicians’ unwillingness to act on evidence about what works best. Evidence-based performance standards (EBPSs) are one response to this problem, and they are increasingly employed by health care regulators and payers. Evidence in this instance is judged according to the precepts of evidence-based medicine (EBM); it is probabilistic, and the randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the gold standard. This means that EBPSs suffer all the infirmities of EBM generally—well rehearsed problems with the external validity of research findings as well as the inferential leap from study results in the aggregate to individual patient care. These theoretical weaknesses promise to have a practical impact on the care of patients. To avoid this, EBPSs should be understood as guidelines indicative of average effectiveness rather than standards to be applied in every case.
KeywordsQuality of care Evidence-based performance standards Evidence-based medicine Probablism Average treatment effect Heterogeneity of treatment effect n + 1 trials Health policy
- 1.Goodman, K.W. 2003. Ethics and evidence-based medicine: Fallibility and responsibility in clinical science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 2.Timmermans, S., and M. Berg. 2003. The gold standard: The challenge of evidence-based medicine and standardization in health care. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
- 3.Bodenheimer, T., and K. Grumbach. 2009. Understanding health policy: A clinical approach, 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- 4.Institute of Medicine. 2000. To err is human: Building a safer health care system. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- 6.Marks, H.M. 1997. The progress of experiment: Science and therapeutic reform in the United States, 1900–1990. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 7.Institute of Medicine. 2001. Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- 8.Qaseem, A., V. Snow, D.K. Owens, and P. Shekelle. 2010. The development of clinical practice guidelines and guidance statements of the American College of Physicians: Summary of methods. Annals of Internal Medicine 153(3): 194–197.Google Scholar
- 9.American College of Physicians. 2011. Guideline process. http://www.acponline.org/clinical_information/guidelines/guidelines/process.htm. Accessed 7/31/2011.
- 10.Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. 2001. Levels of evidence. www.entkent.com/html/Oxford_CEBM_Levels_5.htm. Accessed 8/21/11.
- 13.Schon, D.A. 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith.Google Scholar
- 14.Klein, G.A. 1999. Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- 16.Hacking, I. 1990. The taming of chance. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 17.Marks, H.M. 2009. What does evidence do? Histories of therapeutic research. In Harmonizing drugs: Standards in 20th century pharmaceutical history, ed. C. Bonah, C. Masutti, A. Rasmussen, et al. Paris: Editions Glyphe.Google Scholar
- 18.Wennberg, J.E. 2010. Tracking medicine: A researcher’s quest to understand health care. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 20.Gray, B.H., M.K. Gusmano, and S.R. Collins. 2003. AHCPR and the changing politics of health services research. Health Affairs W3: 283–307.Google Scholar
- 21.Moyé, L.A. 2006. Statistical reasoning in medicine: The intuitive p-value primer, 2nd ed. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- 22.Goodman, S. 1999. Probability at the bedside: The knowing of chances or the chances of knowing. Annals of Internal Medicine 130(7): 604–606.Google Scholar
- 25.Agency for Health Care Research and Quality. 2010. Comparative effectiveness review methods: Clinical heterogeneity. Publication No. 10-EHC070-EF. http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/93/533/Clinical_Heterogeneity_Revised_Report.pdf. Accessed 7/27/2012.
- 28.Pogach, L.M.A., A. Tawari, M. Maney, et al. 2007. Should mitigating comorbidities be considered in assessing healthcare plan performance in achieving optimal glycemic control? American Journal of Managed Care 13: 133–140.Google Scholar
- 30.Sackett, D., R.B. Haynes, G.H. Guyatt, et al. 1991. Clinical epidemiology: A basic science of clinical medicine, 2nd ed. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar