Hofer T P, Hayward R A, Greenfield S, Wagner E H, Kaplan S H, Manning W G
Veterans Affairs Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, and Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 48113, USA.
JAMA. 1999 Jun 9;281(22):2098-105. doi: 10.1001/jama.281.22.2098.
Physician profiling is widely used by many health care systems, but little is known about the reliability of commonly used profiling systems.
To determine the reliability of a set of physician performance measures for diabetes care, one of the most common conditions in medical practice, and to examine whether physicians could substantially improve their profiles by preferential patient selection.
Cohort study performed from 1990 to 1993 at 3 geographically and organizationally diverse sites, including a large staff-model health maintenance organization, an urban university teaching clinic, and a group of private-practice physicians in an urban area.
A total of 3642 patients with type 2 diabetes cared for by 232 different physicians.
Physician profiles for their patients' hospitalization and clinic visit rates, total laboratory resource utilization rate and level of glycemic control by average hemoglobin A1c level with and without detailed case-mix adjustment.
For profiles based on hospitalization rates, visit rates, laboratory utilization rates, and glycemic control, 4% or less of the overall variance was attributable to differences in physician practice and the reliability of the median physician's case-mix-adjusted profile was never better than 0.40. At this low level of physician effect, a physician would need to have more than 100 patients with diabetes in a panel for profiles to have a reliability of 0.80 or better (while more than 90% of all primary care physicians at the health maintenance organization had fewer than 60 patients with diabetes). For profiles of glycemic control, high outlier physicians could dramatically improve their physician profile simply by pruning from their panel the 1 to 3 patients with the highest hemoglobin A1c levels during the prior year. This advantage from gaming could not be prevented by even detailed case-mix adjustment.
Physician "report cards" for diabetes, one of the highest-prevalence conditions in medical practice, were unable to detect reliably true practice differences within the 3 sites studied. Use of individual physician profiles may foster an environment in which physicians can most easily avoid being penalized by avoiding or deselecting patients with high prior cost, poor adherence, or response to treatments.
医生绩效评估被许多医疗系统广泛使用,但对于常用评估系统的可靠性却知之甚少。
确定一组用于糖尿病护理的医生绩效指标的可靠性,糖尿病是医疗实践中最常见的病症之一,并研究医生是否可以通过优先选择患者来大幅改善其绩效评估结果。
1990年至1993年在3个地理和组织构成各异的地点进行的队列研究,包括一个大型员工模式健康维护组织、一家城市大学教学诊所,以及市区的一组私人执业医生。
由232名不同医生护理的总共3642例2型糖尿病患者。
医生关于其患者住院率和门诊就诊率、实验室资源总利用率以及糖化血红蛋白平均水平(有和没有详细病例组合调整)的血糖控制水平的绩效评估。
对于基于住院率、就诊率、实验室利用率和血糖控制的绩效评估,总体差异的4%或更少可归因于医生医疗行为的差异,并且经病例组合调整后的医生绩效中位数的可靠性从未超过0.40。在这种较低的医生效应水平下,一名医生在其患者组中需要有超过100例糖尿病患者,绩效评估的可靠性才能达到0.80或更高(而健康维护组织中超过90%的初级保健医生所管理的糖尿病患者少于60例)。对于血糖控制的绩效评估,处于极端异常值的医生只需从前一年其患者组中剔除血红蛋白A1c水平最高的1至3名患者,就能显著改善其医生绩效评估结果。即使进行详细的病例组合调整,这种通过投机取巧获得的优势也无法避免。
针对糖尿病(医疗实践中患病率最高的病症之一)的医生“成绩单”无法可靠地检测出所研究的3个地点内真正的医疗行为差异。使用个体医生绩效评估可能会营造一种环境,即医生可以通过避免或不选择先前成本高、依从性差或治疗反应不佳的患者,最轻松地避免受到惩罚。