Performance Measurement

19 Dec
English: California OPA Health Care Quality Re...

Image via Wikipedia

Converting Practice Guidelines Into Quality Measure

Performance incentives have been recently adopted in France by the national health care insurer to remunerate French Doctors. In Health care, when one can not measure outcomes one measures process. But a good process for an individual patient doesn’t reflect necessarily a good process for the average patient studied by the evidence-based medical research. In a precedent post I presented what the heterogeneity of treatment effect means. In the present post I will try to highlight where stands the fundamental difference between professional guidelines and quality assessment tools of physician practice. Guidelines stem from the average patient. A quality assessment tool assesses the individual patient dealing with the heterogeneity or deviation around the mean value. From now on, given the use of guidelines made by health policy makers to evaluate health care professionals, it becomes a priority goal for searchers to take into account this use when writing their guidelines. For that purpose they should more insist on the heterogeneity of their results and perform sub group analysis across the different risk level of disease to which their studied subjects are exposed. They should accurately determine if their recommendations are applicable to subjects with multiple co morbidities. That is only at this condition that guideline will coincide with a sound balanced quality assessment tool for physician practice.

The thoughts here above were inspired to me by the reading of the two following interesting papers authored by physicians working for the Department Veterans Affairs which manage the most important health care system in the United States:

Garber AM. Evidence-Based Guidelines As a Foundation For Performance Incentives. Health Affairs. 2005 Jan;24(1):174-179. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.24.1.174.

Walter LC, Davidowitz NP, Heineken PA, Covinsky KE. Pitfalls of Converting Practice Guidelines Into Quality Measures. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2004 May;291(20):2466-2470. Available from:http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.20.2466.

3 Responses to “Performance Measurement”

  1. Janice Flahiff December 20, 2011 at 12:24 pm #

    Thank you…it reinforces my beliefs about practice guidelines, emphasis on guidelines!
    It is good to measure compliance, and have incentives for performance…
    Although generalizations can be made about how to best treat diseases/conditions…at the end of the day…it is people, not diseases/conditions..that are the focus of any good health care system…and heterogeneity of treatment effect is an important facet of treating the whole person, not just the disease/condition..

    • Ha-Vinh December 20, 2011 at 11:20 pm #

      I absolutely agree with you. All the more if the patient incurs multiple diseases there is no guideline saying how to deal perfectly in this case with all the diseases in the same time. Another example; the worse breast cancers frequently appear between two scheduled mammogram screenings because their size increase at high speed leaving no time for the next screening to early diagnose them and being not yet apparent on the previous screening. Even if guidelines are followed in this case the physician have to be skill and have to think to a breast cancer with a negative result in the last mammogram. As you see, following guidelines is necessary but is far from sufficient.
      Respectfully yours.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Performance Measurement – Converting Practice Guidelines Into Quality Measure « Health and Medical News and Resources - December 20, 2011

    […] Excerpts from the 19 December blog item by Ha-Vinh at Health Services Authors Performance incentives have been recently adopted in France by the national health care insurer to remunerate French Doctors. In Health care, when one can not measure outcomes one measures process. But a good process for an individual patient doesn’t reflect necessarily a good process for the average patient studied by the evidence-based medical research. In a precedent post I presented what the heterogeneity of treatment effect means. In the present post I will try to highlight where stands the fundamental difference between professional guidelines and quality assessment tools of physician practice. Guidelines stem from the average patient. A quality assessment tool assesses the individual patient dealing with the heterogeneity or deviation around the mean value. From now on, given the use of guidelines made by health policy makers to evaluate health care professionals, it becomes a priority goal for searchers to take into account this use when writing their guidelines. For that purpose they should more insist on the heterogeneity of their results and perform sub group analysis across the different risk level of disease to which their studied subjects are exposed. They should accurately determine if their recommendations are applicable to subjects with multiple co morbidities. That is only at this condition that guideline will coincide with a sound balanced quality assessment tool for physician practice… […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: