Current indicators have been chosen for ease of collection rather than scientific validity
- Paul Myers (Pmyers1860@aol.com), Senior lecturer.
- Department of General Practice and Primary Care, Queen Mary and Westfield College, St Bartholomew's and the Royal London School of Medicine, Medical Sciences, London E1 4NS
- Petts Hill Surgery, Northolt UB5 4NL
- Department of Primary Health Care and General Practice, Imperial College School of Medicine, London W2 1PG
- East Sussex, Brighton and Hove Health Authority, Lewes, East Sussex BN7 2PB
- 17 Villiers Crescent, Eccleston, St Helens, Merseyside WA10 5HP
- Prescribing Research Group, Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GF
- Wessex Institute for Health Research and Development, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton SO16 6YD
- Primary Medical Care, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 5ST
- Three Swans Surgery, Salisbury ST1 1DX
EDITOR—McColl et al provide a welcome alternative1 to performance indicators proposed by the NHS Executive and the Department of Health.2 They have suggested a range of evidence based interventions which are likely to produce behaviour change at practice level. The proposed indicators are very different from the performance indicators in current use, which seem to have a political role at health authority level, often being used simply to search for poorly performing doctors.
I have looked at the performance indicators that have been described in the literature, and in particular the scientific evidence underpinning them. Little evidence exists for the validity of using the common indicators in current use.3 A consistent finding is that indicators are often chosen for their ease of collection rather than their scientific validity. The most commonly used indicators include uptake of cervical cytology, immunisation rates, and various prescribing indicators. I have found little published research showing the importance of a high or low indicator. This applies particularly when the indicators have been accepted as proxy measures of individual general practitioners' clinical competence. Others have also reviewed performance indicators and have identified additional areas that raise doubts about their validity. 4 5
The new indicators will need to be differentiated from the non-clinical indicators that are currently popular markers of clinical competence. In practice these often reflect historic support that has been provided for the practice rather than the competence of the individual general practitioner. Thus the proposed introduction of evidence based clinical indicators for primary care groups provides a more acceptable way forward.
Although McColl et al's paper refers to cost effectiveness of proposed interventions, the likely timescale over which they will operate requires consideration, as it has an important implication for the primary care groups at which they are targeted. Although …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The decline in the breast cancer incidence is 1.2% and it is not significant.
Published 10 February 2012
'twas ever thus
Published 10 February 2012
The value of historic human remains
Published 10 February 2012
In Praise of British Literature
Published 10 February 2012
Is real shared decision making possible?
Published 10 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012