Unintended consequences of quality measurement

Although pay-for-performance programs and public reporting of the performance of health care providers - such as general practices in the UK - have become integral components of strategies to improve the quality of health care, measurement and reporting of the quality of healthcare can also have unintended consequences. In a recent article published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, I discuss 'exception reporting', a method whereby patients who will not benefit from an intervention (such as those who are terminally ill) are excluded from quality measurement and not treated inappropriately.

Exception reporting rates in the UK Quality & Outcomes Framework vary widely among general practices that take part in the scheme. When Dalton et al examined exception reporting rates among people with diabetes from 23 general practices in London, they found that patients who were exception-reported by their physicians were significantly less likely to achieve treatment targets for haemoglobin A1c, blood pressure and cholesterol control. The highest rates of exception reporting occurred among already disadvantaged groups at greatest risk for diabetes complications and poorer health outcomes, such as older patients, patients from ethnic minority groups, and patients with longer durations of diabetes and increased levels of co-morbidity.

The findings of this study - published in the journal Diabetic Medicine - highlight the importance of monitoring exclusions from pay-for-performance and public reporting programs.

Comments

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...

Relevance Over Recall: Rethinking How AI Uses Clinical Data

Our article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine argues that safe and effective AI in healthcare must incorporate mechanisms that emulate human judgement - down-weighting old, inaccurate or superseded information and prioritising what is recent, clinically relevant and reaffirmed - so that AI supports, rather than disrupts, high-quality patient care. Clinicians constantly revise, reinterpret and filter past information so that only what is relevant, accurate and timely shapes present-day management decisions; medical records function as dynamic “working tools” rather than fixed archives. By contrast, many AI systems lack this capacity for selective forgetting and often treat all historical data as equally meaningful. This can lead to outdated or low-confidence diagnoses being repeatedly resurfaced, persistent labels influencing clinical expectations, and irrelevant, long-resolved events cluttering summaries and decision-support outputs. Such indiscriminate recall...

Medical Centre

Search This Blog