RSM logo
JRSM

Home Current issue Browse archive Alerts About the journal Feedback
 
J R Soc Med 2006;99:486
doi:10.1258/jrsm.99.10.486
© 2006 Royal Society of Medicine

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Send a Quick Comment
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Quick Comments are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jessani, S.
Right arrow Articles by Tomson, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking
 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?
J R Soc Med 2006;99:486
© 2006 The Royal Society of Medicine

Letters

Measuring healthcare outcomes—a race to utopia?

Shahirose Jessani   Joseph Tomson

Registrar in Cardiology, City Hospital, Birmingham, B18 7QH, UK

Correspondence to: Dr J Tomson E-mail: drjtomson{at}aol.com

‘Payment by results or payment by outcome? The history of measuring medicine’1 was a fascinating read. Outcome assessment is, indeed, an essential aspect in modern day National Health Service; just as in other service sectors, be it education, information technology, finance, etc. However, we wonder if healthcare outcomes are always easily measurable, and if so, also adequately measurable in the current pace of modern medicine? Though the author suggests the development of integrated care pathway (that encompasses the development and implementation of evidence-based guidelines), as a method of assessment, a major draw back is the fact that evidence is changing faster than the emergence of guidelines.

For instance, in cardiology, one of the most evidence-based specialties in medicine, current best practice is often far ahead of guidance. For example, in the recently published guidelines on prevention of cardiovascular disease in clinical practice (JBS-2),2 the AB/CD algorithm for hypertension is cited. The AB/CD algorithm will be revised soon, into A/CD, given the recent evidence on beta-blockers not being the ideal first-line agents for treatment of essential hypertension, except in the presence of heart disease.3,4 The revised joint NICE and BHS guidelines in this direction are imminent. What is even more interesting is the recently published (January 2006) NICE guidelines on statins for the primary prevention of CVD in adults.5 Evidence for statins in similar settings was available since the late 1990s.6 Furthermore, though the guidelines advocate the use of statins in adults based on cardiovascular disease risk assessment,5 the NICE guidelines on cardiovascular disease risk assessment are currently in development and are not expected until 2007. Thus, when guidelines lag behind evidence, achieving adequate measurable clinical indicators of outcome to improve quality of care is at best a utopian dream.

Footnotes

Competing interests Both authors are practising hospital doctors.

REFERENCES

  1. O'Connor RJ, Neumann VC. Payment by results or payment by outcome? The history of measuring medicine. J R Soc Med2006; 99:226 -31[Free Full Text]

  2. British Cardiac Society, British Hypertension Society, Diabetes UK, HEART UK, Primary Care Cardiovascular Society, Stroke Association. JBS 2: Joint British Societies' guidelines on prevention of cardiovascular disease in clinical practice. Heart2005; 91(Suppl 5):1 -52[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  3. Lindholm LH, Carlberg B, Samuelsson O. Should beta blockers remain first choice in the treatment of primary hypertension? A meta-analysis. Lancet2005; 366:1545 -53[CrossRef][Medline]

  4. Beevers DG. The end of beta blockers for uncomplicated hypertension? Lancet2005; 366:1510 -12[CrossRef][Medline]

  5. [http://www.nice.org.uk/TA094guidance] Accessed on 20 May 2006

  6. Shepherd J, Cobbe SM, Ford I, et al. Prevention of coronary heart disease with pravastatin in men with hypercholesterolemia. West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study Group. N Engl J Med 1995; 333:1301 -7[Abstract/Free Full Text]


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



This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Send a Quick Comment
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Quick Comments are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jessani, S.
Right arrow Articles by Tomson, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking
 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?

MDU Exam Doctor