Doctor performance and public accountability.
Saved in:
| Title: | Doctor performance and public accountability. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Lanier, David C., Roland, Martin, Burstin, Helen, Knottnerus, J. André |
| Source: | Lancet. 10/25/2003, Vol. 362 Issue 9393, p1404-1408. 5p. |
| Subjects: | Medical care, Medical personnel, Higher education, Professional peer review |
| Abstract: | Public concern about the quality of health care has motivated governments, health-care funders, and clinicians to expand efforts to improve professional performance. In this paper, we illustrate such efforts from the perspective of three countries, the UK, the USA, and the Netherlands. The earliest strategies, which included continuing professional education, clinical audits, and peer review, were aimed at the individual doctor, and produced only modest effects. Other efforts, such as national implementation of practice guidelines, effective use of information technologies, and intensive involvement by doctors in continuous quality-improvement activities, are aimed more broadly at health-care systems. Much is yet unknown about whether these or other strategies--such as centralised supervision or regulation of quality improvement, or use of financial incentives--are effective. As demands for greater public accountability rise, continuing performance improvement efforts of each of our countries offer us opportunities to learn from one another. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Lancet is the property of Lancet and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Public concern about the quality of health care has motivated governments, health-care funders, and clinicians to expand efforts to improve professional performance. In this paper, we illustrate such efforts from the perspective of three countries, the UK, the USA, and the Netherlands. The earliest strategies, which included continuing professional education, clinical audits, and peer review, were aimed at the individual doctor, and produced only modest effects. Other efforts, such as national implementation of practice guidelines, effective use of information technologies, and intensive involvement by doctors in continuous quality-improvement activities, are aimed more broadly at health-care systems. Much is yet unknown about whether these or other strategies--such as centralised supervision or regulation of quality improvement, or use of financial incentives--are effective. As demands for greater public accountability rise, continuing performance improvement efforts of each of our countries offer us opportunities to learn from one another. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 01406736 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14638-7 |
