International Journal for Quality in Health Care 14:267-268 (2002)
© 2002 International Society for Quality in Health Care
Editorial |
The paradox of the parts and the whole in understanding and improving general practice
The book reviewed in this issue of the Journal [1] epitomizes the state of the art of quality measurement in general practice. Currently available quality indicators are based on a mix of scientific evidence and expert opinion. Indicators assess processes of care that have been found to be associated with markers of patient outcomes.
Quality of care measures and clinical indicators are typically criticized for the limitations of the scientific evidence on which they are based and for their strong reliance on what can be measured [2–4]. However, an even more fundamental issue is important to developing indicators of the quality of general practice. This larger issue is the problem of the parts and the whole—that is, indicators of the quality of care for specific diseases may not adequately represent the quality of care for the whole person.
This is a particular issue in assessing general practice, in which patients often present for care of multiple problems [5] that span different acute and chronic illnesses, prevention, mental health, and family care [6]. The illness presentations in general practice are often non-specific and undifferentiated [7], and much of the quality of practice involves defining the problem to be addressed. In addition, general practice often requires prioritizing the most important issue(s) to address within the context of personal knowledge and an ongoing relationship [8]. Quality indicators, as currently configured, are helpful with aspects of primary care that relate to the care of an individual disease or problem, once it has been defined, and once it is prioritized as the most important issue to address with a particular patient at a particular time. As a result, current quality indicators may be a more fitting representation of the quality of specialty practice, which typically focuses on providing care for specific diseases.
Current quality measures indicate that generalists tend to provide inferior disease-specific care compared with specialists [9]. Yet, general practice is about more than the care of specific diseases. ‘Primary care is the provision of integrated, accessible health care services by clinicians who are accountable for addressing a large majority of personal health care needs, developing a sustained partnership with patients, and practicing in the context of family and community’ [7]. These prioritizing, integrating, relationship-centered functions may explain why generalists use fewer resources while producing similar health outcomes for patients with chronic disease [10,11]. The added value of the generalist approach may also explain why health care systems that emphasize primary care have better health status among their populations than specialist-dominated systems [12–14].
Most currently available disease-specific quality indicators do not capture the added value [6] of these generalist functions. Fortunately, measures are now available that begin to assess the processes of generalist practice [15–22]. Several of these are based in part on the Institute of Medicine definition of primary care [7]. These processes include the domains of comprehensiveness, coordination, continuity, accessibility, communication, advocacy, family, and community orientation and integration of care. They also comprise the quality of the relationship, as assessed by trust, accumulated knowledge, duration of relationship, and the patient’s preference for the regular clinician. A growing body of inquiry shows the effect of these domains on the process and outcome of care [15,17,23–26].
In order to capture the quality of general practice, both disease-specific indicators and measures of the integrative, prioritizing, relationship-centered functions are needed. Focusing quality measurement and improvement efforts only on disease-specific measures misses much of what is uniquely important about general practice, and may have unintended detrimental consequences by devaluing fundamental aspects of the generalist approach that are essential to its success.
Quality indicators are likely to foster optimal quality of care only if disease-specific and general processes of care are assessed and valued. This dual focus will minimize unintended negative consequences of the application of quality indicators, and will stimulate additional research on the prioritizing function of general practice, which is not adequately assessed by currently available indicators. It is necessary to simultaneously focus on both the parts and the whole.
Kurt C. Stange
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
REFERENCES
- Marshall M, Campbell S, Hacker J, Roland M. Quality Indicators for General Practice: A Practical Guide for Health Professional and Managers. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press, Ltd, 2002.
- Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? J Am Med Assoc 1988; 260: 1743–1748.[Abstract]
- Brook RH, McGlynn EA, Cleary PD. Measuring quality of care. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 966–970.
[Free Full Text] - Grol R. Improving the quality of medical care: building bridges among professional pride, payer profit, and patient satisfaction. J Am Med Assoc 2001; 84: 2578–2585.
- Flocke SA, Frank SH, Wenger D. Addressing multiple problems in the family medicine office visit. J Fam Pract 2001; 50: 345–352.[ISI][Medline]
- Stange KC, Jaén CR, Flocke SA, Miller WL, Crabtree BF, Zyzanski SJ. The value of a family physician. J Fam Pract 1998; 46: 363–368.[ISI][Medline]
- Donaldson MS, Yordy KD, Lohr KN, Vanselow NA. Primary Care: America’s Health in a New Era. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996.
- Stange KC. The best of times and worst of times. Br J Gen Pract 2001; 51: 963–966.[Medline]
- Harrold L, Field T, Gurwitz J. Knowledge, patterns of care, and outcomes of care for generalists and specialists. J Gen Intern Med 1999; 14: 499–511.[ISI][Medline]
- Greenfield S, Nelson EC, Zubkoff M et al. Variations in resource utilization among medical specialties and systems of care. J Am Med Assoc 1992; 267: 1624–1630.[Abstract]
- Greenfield S, Rogers W, Mangotich M, Carney MF, Tarlov AR. Outcomes of patients with hypertension and non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus treated by different systems and specialties: results from the medical outcomes study. J Am Med Assoc 1995; 274: 1436–1444.[Abstract]
- Starfield B. Is US health care really the best in the world? J Am Med Assoc 2000; 284: 483–485.
[Free Full Text] - Starfield B. Primary Care: Balancing Health Needs, Services, and Technology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
- Starfield B. New paradigms for quality in priamry care. Br J Gen Pract 2001; 51: 303–309.[ISI][Medline]
- Flocke SA. Measuring attributes of primary care: development of a new instrument. J Fam Pract 1997; 45: 64–74.[ISI][Medline]
- Flocke SA. Letter to Editor: Primary Care Instrument. J Fam Pract 1998; 46: 12.[Medline]
- Flocke SA, Orzano AJ, Selinger A et al. Does managed care restrictiveness affect the perceived quality of care? A report from ASPN. J Fam Pract 1999; 48: 762–768.[Medline]
- Safran DG, Kosinski M, Tarlov AR et al. The primary care assessment survey: tests of data quality and measurement performance. Med Care 1998; 36: 728–739.[ISI][Medline]
- Ramsay J, Campbell JL, Schroter S, Green J, Roland M. The general practice assessment survey (GPAS): tests of data quality and measurement properties. Fam Pract 2000; 17: 372–379.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Starfield B, Cassady C, Nanda J, Forrest CB, Berk R. Consumer experiences and provider perceptions of the quality of primary care: implications for managed care. J Fam Pract 1998; 46: 216–226.[ISI][Medline]
- Shi L, Starfield B, Xu J. Validating the primary care assessment tool. J Fam Pract 2001; 50: 161.[ISI]
- Cassady CE, Starfield B, Hurtado MP, Berk RA, Nanda JP, Friedenberg LA. Measuring consumer experiences with primary care. Pediatrics 2000; 105: 998–1003.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Flocke SA, Stange KC, Zyzanski SJ. The association of attributes of primary care with preventive service delivery. Med Care 1998; 36: AS21–AS30.[ISI][Medline]
- Safran DG, Taira DA, Rogers WH, Kosinski M, Ware JE, Tarlov AR. Linking primary care performance to valued outcomes of care. J Fam Pract 1998; 47: 213–220.[ISI][Medline]
- Campbell SM, Hann M, Hacker J et al. Identifying predictors of high quality care in English general practice: observational study. Br Med J 2001; 323: 784–787.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Safran DG, Montgomery JE, Chang H, Murphy J, Rogers WH. Switching doctors: predictors of voluntary disenrollment from a primary physician’s practice. J Fam Pract 2001; 50: 130–136.[ISI][Medline]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. L. Sussman, R. L. Williams, R. Leverence, P. W. Gloyd Jr, B. F. Crabtree, and on Behalf of RIOS Net Clinicians Self Determination Theory and Preventive Care Delivery: A Research Involving Outpatient Settings Network (RIOS Net) Study J Am Board Fam Med, July 1, 2008; 21(4): 282 - 292. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. C. Stange Is 'Clinical Inertia' Blaming Without Understanding? Are Competing Demands Excuses? Ann. Fam. Med, July 1, 2007; 5(4): 371 - 374. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. C. Stange and W. R. Phillips In This Issue: Real Change Is Real Hard in the Real World Ann. Fam. Med, March 1, 2007; 5(2): 98 - 100. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. P. Daaleman and G. H. Elder Jr Family Medicine and the Life Course Paradigm J Am Board Fam Med, January 1, 2007; 20(1): 85 - 92. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. P. Daaleman Reorganizing medicare for older adults with chronic illness. J Am Board Fam Med, May 1, 2006; 19(3): 303 - 309. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. C. Stange In This Issue: Diabetes Quality of Care Ann. Fam. Med, January 1, 2006; 4(1): 2 - 3. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. F. Crabtree, W. L. Miller, A. F. Tallia, D. J. Cohen, B. DiCicco-Bloom, H. E. McIlvain, V. A. Aita, J. G. Scott, P. B. Gregory, K. C. Stange, et al. Delivery of Clinical Preventive Services in Family Medicine Offices Ann. Fam. Med, September 1, 2005; 3(5): 430 - 435. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Cifuentes, D. H. Fernald, L. A. Green, L. J. Niebauer, B. F. Crabtree, K. C. Stange, and S. B. Hassmiller Prescription for Health: Changing Primary Care Practice to Foster Healthy Behaviors Ann. Fam. Med, July 1, 2005; 3(suppl_2): S4 - S11. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. J. Cohen, A. F. Tallia, B. F. Crabtree, and D. M. Young Implementing Health Behavior Change in Primary Care: Lessons From Prescription for Health Ann. Fam. Med, July 1, 2005; 3(suppl_2): S12 - S19. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. C. Stange and P. A. Nutting In This Issue: Bursting the Bubble on Chronic Disease Management, the Meaning of Healing, PBRN Methods Supplement, and the Annals' 2-Year Anniversary Ann. Fam. Med, May 1, 2005; 3(3): 194 - 196. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. J. Stille, A. Jerant, D. Bell, D. Meltzer, and J. G. Elmore Coordinating Care across Diseases, Settings, and Clinicians: A Key Role for the Generalist in Practice Ann Intern Med, April 19, 2005; 142(8): 700 - 708. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. W. Beasley, T. H. Hankey, R. Erickson, K. C. Stange, M. Mundt, M. Elliott, P. Wiesen, and J. Bobula How Many Problems Do Family Physicians Manage at Each Encounter? A WReN Study Ann. Fam. Med, September 1, 2004; 2(5): 405 - 410. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Grumbach Chronic Illness, Comorbidities, and the Need for Medical Generalism Ann. Fam. Med, May 1, 2003; 1(1): 4 - 7. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. K. Rosen, R. Reid, A.-M. Broemeling, and C. C. Rakovski Applying a Risk-Adjustment Framework to Primary Care: Can We Improve on Existing Measures? Ann. Fam. Med, May 1, 2003; 1(1): 44 - 51. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||