Assessing the quality of care
- 23 September 1995
- Vol. 311 (7008) , 766
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7008.766
Abstract
Measuring well supported processes may be more enlightening than monitoring outcomes Everyone wants information on clinical outcomes.1 These measures have an intuitive appeal: high quality care should be reflected by good outcomes. Therefore, poorer outcomes should indicate deficiencies in care, including missed opportunities or wasted resources. The hope is that data on outcomes will provide a barometer for health care, indicating the effectiveness and efficiency of service delivery. Many purchasers are pushing to include outcomes criteria in their contracts as a means of assessing effectiveness. In clinical audit, measurement of outcome is generally considered superior to audits that simply assess the process of care.2 But perhaps this emphasis on outcomes is being overplayed. Are outcomes data always so enlightening? Outcome measures have a major weakness: interpretation. Suppose a hospital reported that patients admitted with coronary heart disease in 1994 had a 30 day mortality of 25%. This can be interpreted only by comparison with …Keywords
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- Detecting differences in quality of care: the sensitivity of measures of process and outcome in treating acute myocardial infarctionBMJ, 1995
- Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes.1995
- Linking Clinical Variables With Health-Related Quality of LifeJAMA, 1995
- Some observations on attempts to measure appropriateness of careBMJ, 1994
- Auditing audits: use and development of the Oxfordshire Medical Audit Advisory Group rating systemBMJ, 1994
- Comparing healthcare outcomesBMJ, 1994
- Intensive Care Society's APACHE II study in Britain and Ireland--II: Outcome comparisons of intensive care units after adjustment for case mix by the American APACHE II method.BMJ, 1993
- Any better? Outcome measures in medical audit.BMJ, 1992