Defining the utility of clinically acceptable variations in evidence-based practice guidelines for evaluation of quality improvement activities.

This study examines the utility of systematically accounting for acceptable physician variations in guideline application. The results argue against assuming that even seemingly noncontentious guideline protocol offer a threshold of variation similar to conventional Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) assessment standards. Findings also suggest that health service organizations can derive greater benefits from expending the resources necessary to standardize guidelines if compliance with both the medical review criteria, and the guidelines as originally constructed, is monitored as part of the evaluation activity.

Using collectively-derived standards to evaluate individual performance: a cautionary note on clinical practice guidelines.

The purpose of this work is to demonstrate the problem of evaluating an individual physician's performance relative to practice guidelines which have typically been derived from group consensus or some measure of central tendency. It is argued that when evaluated against a set of criteria derived at the macro-level, an individual physician's performance may justifiably vary due to the patient characteristics or the evolving process of care. It is also argued that it is not necessarily true that costs are reduced when practice variation is reduced. The results indicate that there are cost reduction in areas not targeted by the guidelines, suggesting a possible 'spillover effect' due to the increased vigilance in monitoring provider performance. The results also provide some evidence of increased costs following a reduction in variation. Caution should be exercised when evaluating individual physician performance relative to guidelines established at the aggregate level. Acceptable individual physician performance should be judged within the upper and lower boundaries of the implicit distribution of physicians' performances from which the established guidelines generated.

The relationship between resource constraints and physician problem solving. Implications for improving the process of care.

OBJECTIVES: Research suggests that physicians will engage in more vigilant problem-solving under conditions of resource constraints than under conditions of resource slack. Increased vigilance related to physicians' clinical strategies enhances care by disposing physicians toward more optimal care choices. The authors examine whether pressures for clinical resource constraints encourage increased and sustained vigilance in problem-solving among cardiologists treating acute myocardial infarction. METHODS: The physician problem-solving process is reconstructed from the medical records of all eligible cases of acute myocardial infarction treated by the physician sample set over a 6-year period. The sample period encompasses phases of both resource slack and resource constraints. The Herfindahl index is used to measure the relative amount of vigilant problem-solving activity exhibited in each of five major tactical areas of the physician care strategies in each year of the study. RESULTS: The results support the hypothesis that resource constraints initially promote a shift to increased vigilance in physician problem-solving. Only one of the five major tactical areas, however, is characterized by sustained vigilance over time. The other areas are, instead, associated with a substantial reduction in vigilant activity after the initial peak period. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that resource constraints do set the stage for improved clinical decision-making. Sustained vigilance, however, appears to apply only to those portions of the care strategy for which the physician can draw a clear link between optimizing clinical activity and reducing resource consumption. For those portions of the care strategy for which the physician cannot establish a clear link, ongoing pressures to conserve resources results in reduced vigilance and a potential reduction in quality of clinical decision-making.

Quality of life improvement in patents with osteoarthritis: the potential for office-based assessment.

OBJECTIVE: This study presents the initial findings from our evaluation of the Nottingham Health Profile, a short and simple quality of life instrument, to determine its ease and robustness as a routine office tool for evaluating changes in the quality of life for arthritis patients undergoing joint replacement. METHODS: Thirty-five patients awaiting total joint replacement surgery were asked to complete the Nottingham Health Profile at their pre-operative clinic. A post-joint replacement evaluation profile, with a self-addressed stamped envelope, was mailed to each participant 3-4 months post-surgery. The profile was self-administered on both occasions. RESULT: The follow-up response rate was 69%. The t-test for the paired difference of related populations was used to determine pre-test and post-test changes. Significant improvement was found in the profile's 6 subscales, with energy, pain, and physical mobility significant at the 0.001 level, emotion and social isolation significant at the 0.005 level, and sleep significant at the 0.05 level. The before and after comparison of the profile's global self-assessment of health was not significant. CONCLUSION: Preliminary findings suggest that the Nottingham Health Profile is a useful office tool for the routine assessment of intervention-related changes in quality of life. The instrument was easy to self-administer and was associated with a mail return response rate consistent with other investigations using the profile. Even with a small sample size, the profile rendered data consistent with large-scale research evaluations of changes in quality of life for joint replacement patients. The finding that patients' global health status measures did not change despite improvements in quality of life subscales indicates that the instrument reliably netted out the quality of life benefits of the arthritis-related intervention from the patients' total burden of illness.