Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Published 18 March 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b152
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b152
Are beneficial for some conditions, but should their extent be limited?
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
How much of primary care should be standardised? The drive for evidence based quality has precipitated guidelines and protocols aimed at setting standards and reducing variation in clinical care. Yet the personal and continuing approach to care, typified by the general practice consultation, sits uneasily with such requirements for uniformity. Some commentators predict that changes in clinical practice towards care based on more formulaic protocols will lead to the disappearance of the family practitioner.1 Others have highlighted the practical and conceptual barriers that general practitioners face when asked to implement the increasing number of guidelines and decision tools.2 However, the central concern driving the idea of standardisation is the frequent gaps and variations between evidence and practice. In the linked randomised controlled trial (doi:10.1136/bmj.b421), Ravaud and colleagues assess the effect of standardised consultations about body weight and physical exercise in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee.
Standardisation of
Peter Croft, head of centre, Mark Porcheret, general practitioner research fellow
1 Arthritis Research Campaign National Primary Care Centre, Keele University, Staffordshire ST5 5BG
p.r.croft@cphc.keele.ac.uk
Read all Rapid Responses