Skip to main content
Log in

Why the NHS should abandon the search for the universal outcome measure

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Health Care Analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper considers the use of outcome measures in the British National Health Service (NHS). Measuring outcomes is a major conceptual and practical problem. Many different measures are currently available yet no consensus has been reached on which should be preferred over others, or about which should take priority when they conflict. Some currently used measures are described, the relationship between these measures and the measured activities are discussed, and fundamental problems with both the measures and their use are revealed. It is shown that however assiduous the search, the ‘perfect’ outcome measure will always remain elusive.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Main Feature (1994). Political challenge or political veneer?Health Care Analysis 2(1), 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Loughlin, M. (1994). Behind the wall paper.Health Care Analysis 2(1), 47–53.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gladstone, D. and Goldsmith, M. (1995). Health care reform in the UK: working for patients? In,Reforming Health Care: The Philosophy and Practice of International Health Reform, ed. by D.F. Seedhouse, John Wiley & Sons, chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Iliffe, S. (1994). Let the buyer beware!: an open letter to Europe's health ministers, analysts and policy makers.Health Care Analysis 2(1), 77–79.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bowling, A. (1991).Measuring Health, Open University Press, Milton Keynes.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hunt, S. (1986). Measuring health in clinical trials and clinical care. In,Measuring Health: A Practical Approach, ed. by G. Teeling Smith, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  7. McDowell, I. and Newell, C. (1987).Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bell, L., Morris, B. and Brown, R.B. (1993a). Devising a multidisciplinary audit tool.International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance 6(4), 16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bell, L., Brown, R.B. and Morris, B. (1993b). Auditing health services. InQuality and its Applications, ed. by J.F.L. Chan, Penshaw, Cleadon.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Nuffield Institute for Health (1993).Issues in Outcome Measurement: Four Basic Questions, University of Leeds.

  11. Seedhouse, D.F. (1994). Health care values or business values?Health Care Analysis 2(3), 181–186.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Beck, A.T. (1988). Psychometric properties of the Beck depression inventory: 25 years of evaluation.Clinical Psychology Review 8(1), 77–100.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hunt, S.M., McKenna, S.P. and Williams, J. (1981). Reliability of a population survey tool for measuring perceived health problems: a study of patients with osteo-arthritis.Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 35(4), 297–300.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Griseri, P. (1993). Management praxis: an approach to evaluating theory. Paper presented to theBritish Academy of Management Annual Conference, Milton Keynes.

  15. Hughes, J.M. (1988). The body of knowledge in management education.Management Education and Development (MEAD) 19(4), 301–310.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Whitley, R. (1992).Formal Knowledge and Management Education, Working Paper No. 236, Manchester Business School.

  17. Wren, D.A., Buckley, M.R. and Michaelson, L.K. (1994). The theory/applications balance in management pedagory: where do we stand?Journal of Management 20(1), 141–157.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brown, R.B., McCartney, S. & Bell, L. Why the NHS should abandon the search for the universal outcome measure. Health Care Anal 3, 191–195 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02197668

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02197668

Keywords

Navigation