|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CPGs: Think Core ConceptIn 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 practicedriving wide-ranging administrative systems including documentation, workforce planning, capital equipment purchases, and, most important, the payment system and not just care processesthe 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.
NOTES
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||