Abstract
Poor quality medical care is sometimes attributed to physicians’ unwillingness to act on evidence about what works best. Evidence-based performance standards (EBPSs) are one response to this problem, and they are increasingly employed by health care regulators and payers. Evidence in this instance is judged according to the precepts of evidence-based medicine (EBM); it is probabilistic, and the randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the gold standard. This means that EBPSs suffer all the infirmities of EBM generally—well rehearsed problems with the external validity of research findings as well as the inferential leap from study results in the aggregate to individual patient care. These theoretical weaknesses promise to have a practical impact on the care of patients. To avoid this, EBPSs should be understood as guidelines indicative of average effectiveness rather than standards to be applied in every case.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Goodman, K.W. 2003. Ethics and evidence-based medicine: Fallibility and responsibility in clinical science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Timmermans, S., and M. Berg. 2003. The gold standard: The challenge of evidence-based medicine and standardization in health care. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Bodenheimer, T., and K. Grumbach. 2009. Understanding health policy: A clinical approach, 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Institute of Medicine. 2000. To err is human: Building a safer health care system. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
Chassin, M.R., and J.M. Loeb. 2011. The ongoing quality improvement journey. Health Affairs 30(4): 558–567.
Marks, H.M. 1997. The progress of experiment: Science and therapeutic reform in the United States, 1900–1990. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Institute of Medicine. 2001. Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
Qaseem, A., V. Snow, D.K. Owens, and P. Shekelle. 2010. The development of clinical practice guidelines and guidance statements of the American College of Physicians: Summary of methods. Annals of Internal Medicine 153(3): 194–197.
American College of Physicians. 2011. Guideline process. http://www.acponline.org/clinical_information/guidelines/guidelines/process.htm. Accessed 7/31/2011.
Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. 2001. Levels of evidence. www.entkent.com/html/Oxford_CEBM_Levels_5[1].htm. Accessed 8/21/11.
Werner, R.M., J.T. Kolstad, E.A. Stuart, and D. Polsky. 2011. The effect of pay-for-performance in hospitals: Lessons for quality improvement. Health Affairs 30(4): 690–698.
Tanenbaum, S.J. 2009. Pay-for-performance in medicare: Evidentiary irony and the politics of value. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 34(5): 717–746.
Schon, D.A. 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith.
Klein, G.A. 1999. Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Goldenberg, M.J. 2006. On evidence and evidence-based medicine: Lessons from the philosophy of science. Social Science and Medicine 62: 2621–2632.
Hacking, I. 1990. The taming of chance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Marks, H.M. 2009. What does evidence do? Histories of therapeutic research. In Harmonizing drugs: Standards in 20th century pharmaceutical history, ed. C. Bonah, C. Masutti, A. Rasmussen, et al. Paris: Editions Glyphe.
Wennberg, J.E. 2010. Tracking medicine: A researcher’s quest to understand health care. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tanenbaum, S.J. 1994. Knowing and acting in medical practice: The epistemological politics of outcomes research. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 19(1): 24–44.
Gray, B.H., M.K. Gusmano, and S.R. Collins. 2003. AHCPR and the changing politics of health services research. Health Affairs W3: 283–307.
Moyé, L.A. 2006. Statistical reasoning in medicine: The intuitive p-value primer, 2nd ed. New York: Springer.
Goodman, S. 1999. Probability at the bedside: The knowing of chances or the chances of knowing. Annals of Internal Medicine 130(7): 604–606.
Dans, A.L., L.F. Dans, G.H. Guyatt, and S. Richardson. 1998. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XIV. How to decide on the applicability of clinical trial results to your patient. Evidence-based medicine working group. JAMA 279(7): 545–549.
Kravitz, R.L., N. Duan, and J. Braslow. 2004. Evidence-based medicine, heterogeneity of treatment effects, and the trouble with averages. Milbank Quarterly 82(4): 661–687.
Agency for Health Care Research and Quality. 2010. Comparative effectiveness review methods: Clinical heterogeneity. Publication No. 10-EHC070-EF. http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/93/533/Clinical_Heterogeneity_Revised_Report.pdf. Accessed 7/27/2012.
Kravitz, R.L., N. Duan, E.J. Niedzinski, M.C. Hay, S.K. Subramanian, and T.S. Weisner. 2008. What ever happened to N-of-1 trials? Insiders’ perspectives and a look to the future. Milbank Quarterly 86(4): 533–555.
Boyd, C., J. Darer, C. Boult, et al. 2005. Clinical practice guidelines and the quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: Implications for pay for performance. JAMA 294(6): 716–724.
Pogach, L.M.A., A. Tawari, M. Maney, et al. 2007. Should mitigating comorbidities be considered in assessing healthcare plan performance in achieving optimal glycemic control? American Journal of Managed Care 13: 133–140.
Walter, L.C., N.P. Davidowitz, P.A. Heineken, and K.E. Covinsky. 2004. Pitfalls of converting practice guidelines into quality measures: Lessons learned from a VA performance measure. JAMA 291(20): 2466–2470.
Sackett, D., R.B. Haynes, G.H. Guyatt, et al. 1991. Clinical epidemiology: A basic science of clinical medicine, 2nd ed. Boston: Little, Brown.
Brookes, S.T., L. Biddle, C. Paterson, G. Woolhead, and P. Dieppe. 2007. “Me’s me and you’s you”: Exploring patients’ perspectives of single patient (n-of-1) trial in the UK. Trials 8(10): 1–8. www.trialsjournal.com/content/8/1/10.
Doran, T., C. Fullwood, H. Gravelle, D. Reeves, E. Kontopantelis, U. Hiroeh, and M. Roland. 2006. Pay-for-performance programs in family practices in the United Kingdom. New England Journal of Medicine 355: 375–384.
Angell, M. 1993. The doctor as double agent. Kennedy Institute Ethics Journal 3: 279–286.
Morone, J.A. 2011. Big ideas, broken institutions, and the wrath at the grass roots. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 36(3): 375–386.
Avorn, J. 2009. Debate about funding comparative-effectiveness research. New England Journal of Medicine 360(19): 1927–1929.
Coelho, T. 2010. A patient advocate’s perspective on patient-centered comparative effectiveness research. Health Affairs 29(10): 1885–1890.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tanenbaum, S.J. Improving the quality of medical care: the normativity of evidence-based performance standards. Theor Med Bioeth 33, 263–277 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-012-9226-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-012-9226-0