QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]
Author:
Keyword(s):
Year:  Vol:  Page: 

   

 

Health Affairs, 24, no. 3 (2005): 885-886
doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.24.3.885-a
© 2005 by Project HOPE
 
New Online
 * VP Candidates On Health Reform
 * Cutler On McCain's Plan
 * Scoring Obama's Plan
 * Roundtable: Politics, Reform
 * Number Of Uninsured
 * Delivery System Overhaul
This Article
* Extract Freely available
* Reprint (PDF)
* Submit a response to this article
* Alert me when this article is cited
* Alert me when eLetters are posted
* Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
* E-mail this article to a friend
* Similar articles in this journal
* Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
* Similar articles in PubMed
* Alert me to new issues of the journal
* Add to My Personal Archive
* Download to Citation Manager
*Reprints & Permissions
Citing Articles
* Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
* Articles by Gosfield, A. G.
* Articles by Reinertsen, J. L.
* Search for Related Content
PubMed
* PubMed Citation
* Articles by Gosfield, A. G.
* Articles by Reinertsen, J. L.

Letters

CPGs: Think Core Concept


In their paper on the promises and pitfalls of evidence-based medicine (Jan/Feb 05), Stefan Timmermans and Aaron Mauck cite a number of barriers that hinder physicians from adhering to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). We offer one more: There is little understanding of how CPGs can help physicians in their daily work. In a practice environment where the payment systems bear no relationship to science or quality, day-to-day work is complicated by potential auditor requirements to document patient care, receive prior authorization of services by health plans, and manage prescription needs to plan-specific formularies. Physicians often see CPGs as simply adding to an intolerable administrative burden.

We have posited, however, that if CPGs were made the bedrock for physician practice—driving wide-ranging administrative systems including documentation, workforce planning, capital equipment purchases, and, most important, the payment system and not just care processes—the value of CPGs would be better appreciated, and they would be more widespread.1 We have proposed five principles to address these issues. With CPGs as the foundation for both clinical and administrative systems, standardization to the science would save physicians substantial amounts of time and free them to custom-craft the art of care for their patients.2 This is a different view of what CPGs offer and makes a far better business case for quality than has existed to date.

Alice G. Gosfield and James L. Reinertsen

NOTES

  1. A. Gosfield, "The Doctor-Patient Relationship as the Business Case for Quality: Doing Well by Doing Right," Journal of Health Law 37, no. 2 (2004): 197–223[Medline]; and J. Reinertsen and A. Gosfield, "Doing Well by Doing Good: Improving the Business Case for Quality," June 2003, www.uft-a.com/PDF/uft-a_White_Paper_060103.PDF (11 March 2005).
  2. J. Reinertsen, "Zen and the Art of Physician Autonomy Maintenance," Annals of Internal Medicine 138, no. 12 (2003): 992–995.[Abstract/Free Full Text]


Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati    What's this?




Home | Current Issue | Archives | Topic Collections | Search | Blog | Subscribe | Contact Us | Help

© 2001-2005 Project HOPE–The People-to-People Organization
Terms and Policies