Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticlePoint/Counterpoint

Counterpoint: How Quality Reporting Made Me a Worse Doctor

David L. Hahn
The Annals of Family Medicine May 2017, 15 (3) 206-208; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2077
David L. Hahn
1Wisconsin Research and Education Network (WREN), Madison, Wisconsin
2Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
MD, MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: dlhahn@wisc.edu
  • Article
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
  • quality improvement
  • quality measures
  • shared decision making

The current approach to accountability of medical care is to blend reporting of “quality measures” with “pay-for-performance” (P4P).1 Benefits of this approach include use of medical evidence and population-based thinking. Limitations include use of disease-oriented instead of patient-oriented measures, and arbitrary benchmarks lacking actionable information. Evidence that physician P4P strategies have improved patient care and outcomes is limited.1 Pay-for-performance incentives to maximize performance instead of incentivizing informed patient preferences can put clinicians in the position of having to choose between providing excellent individualized patient care, or being paid equitably. Linking compensation with achieving arbitrary benchmarks conflicts with practicing shared decision making wherein the quality measure is the adequacy of the shared–decision-making encounter, not the prevalence of the eventual outcome chosen by the patient.2 These perverse incentives made me a worse doctor as indicated by failing to meet the benchmarks.

PATIENT SATISFACTION

My partners complained about the conflict between good medical practice versus giving patients what they demanded (such as unneeded antibiotics and/or opioids) to increase patient satisfaction scores. System factors beyond the direct control of the clinician may also demoralize clinicians who feel they are being unfairly judged.3 In one study, whether patients chose (higher satisfaction) or were assigned (lower satisfaction) their doctor was 10 times more influential than clinician behavior.3 Might one also expect an inverse association between patient satisfaction scores and open access scheduling? I asked myself that question as I continued to keep my practice open to “work-ins,” “walk-ins,” and new patients.

MEASURES BASED ON OPINION NOT EVIDENCE

A measure based on expert opinion increased the death rate of the unlucky patient group that achieved the “quality” benchmark.4 It took 4 years from the time of publication of a randomized controlled trial—(Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes [ACCORD])4 that provided Level 1 evidence that aggressive treatment of Type 2 diabetes to an A1c below 7 increased mortality—before this measure was eliminated from my practice.5 During those 4 years we who were aware of ACCORD had to choose between evidence-based practice and looking good on the “quality” measure. Here’s another example, though not as deadly. There is no strong evidence for mass screening of depression because all existing trials are of high-risk groups (eg, high utilizers of medical care6 or groups containing patients with previous depression diagnoses).7,8 Depression measures should encourage case finding.9 In my experience, mass screening wastes resources.

PATIENT-ORIENTED MEASURES

Advocates for disease-oriented measures (eg, HgbA1c) argue that surrogates (like laboratory values) are easier to measure than patient-centered outcomes (such as morbidity and mortality). Is it better to do the inadequate thing systematically than back off and do the right thing whenever possible? A growing number of validated patient-reported outcome measures are available (eg, PHQ-9 for depression, the Asthma Control Test for asthma). Process measures for depression (visit frequency) and asthma (medication use) are of limited utility10 or valueless.11 Only surrogate measures validated in practice-based research effectiveness randomized controlled trials should be considered for use. Directly measuring patient-important outcomes is better.

ARBITRARY BENCHMARKS

Current quality measures reward achieving a high prevalence of performance and rank performance based on arbitrary benchmarks (eg, the benchmark for systolic blood pressure [SBP] control is <140). Is achieving a SBP of 138 better than a SBP of 142? This approach inevitably leads to gaming.12 Performance measures should draw attention to clinical conditions that most warrant attention (eg, treating a SBP of 220 to 150 is clinically important but does not meet the current benchmark). My partners and I knew this and felt helpless to do anything about it. The original intent of quality measurement was to inform valid quality improvement activities. Benchmarks need to be reconfigured to fulfill this aim.

SHARED DECISION MAKING

Shared decision making is a process in which the clinician offers options to her patient who is encouraged to apply his own values to making the choice that is best suited to him.13,14 Shared decision making is appropriate for clinical preventive services and management of chronic conditions that form the bulk of current primary care practice. Quality assessment should focus on the shared decision making process, not on the prevalence of the choices made by the patient.2 A clear conflict of interest exists for clinicians practicing in settings that link achievement of arbitrary benchmarks to clinician pay or other incentives/disincentives. This may be the most disturbing unanticipated consequence of the “quality” movement. I was an early advocate of clinical preventive service delivery in primary care15–17 and knew I could manufacture high numbers if I wanted to.18 I refused to play the game, however, because I had learned that shared decision making was more personally rewarding. This inevitably meant that “quality” reporting made me look like a worse doctor.

My partners complained that we were “not making widgets.” I wonder to what extent clinician burnout may be attributable to knowing that one is being judged unfairly by metrics that undermine effective practice.12 Measures must be improved. They should provide actionable information. They should align with good clinical practices and promote patient-centered care, especially shared decision making. They should encourage reflection and valid continuous quality improvement. They should undergo regular evaluation and should allow for changes in response to data and provider input.1 Measures should not be used to arbitrarily and spuriously reward or punish clinicians. Current “quality” measures do not address many things that stakeholders (patients, clinicians, payers) feel are important.19 The Institute of Medicine has recently outlined a radically different set of core quality measures.20 How many years (or decades) before we see better measures?

Footnotes

  • Conflicts of interest: author reports none.

  • Received for publication November 23, 2016.
  • Revision received January 13, 2017.
  • Accepted for publication February 8, 2017.
  • © 2017 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Kondo KK,
    2. Damberg CL,
    3. Mendelson A,
    4. et al
    . Implementation processes and pay for performance in healthcare: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(Suppl 1):61–69.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Hahn DL
    . Public reporting needs reform! J Fam Pract. 2009;58(5):237–238, 240.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Schmittdiel J,
    2. Selby JV,
    3. Grumbach K,
    4. Quesenberry CP Jr.
    Choice of a personal physician and patient satisfaction in a health maintenance organization. JAMA. 1997;278(19):1596–1599.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Gerstein HC,
    2. Miller ME,
    3. Byington RP,
    4. et al
    ; Action to control cardiovascular risk in diabetes study group. Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(24):2545–2559.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    Wisconsin-Collaborative-for-Healthcare-Quality-(WCHQ). http://www.wchq.org/. Accessed Jun 4, 2016.
  6. ↵
    1. Pearson SD,
    2. Katzelnick DJ,
    3. Simon GE,
    4. Manning WG,
    5. Helstad CP,
    6. Henk HJ
    . Depression among high utilizers of medical care. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14(8):461–468.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Thombs BD,
    2. Arthurs E,
    3. El-Baalbaki G,
    4. Meijer A,
    5. Ziegelstein RC,
    6. Steele RJ
    . Risk of bias from inclusion of patients who already have diagnosis of or are undergoing treatment for depression in diagnostic accuracy studies of screening tools for depression: systematic review. BMJ. 2011;343:d4825.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Thombs BD,
    2. Ziegelstein RC,
    3. Roseman M,
    4. Kloda LA,
    5. Ioannidis JP
    . There are no randomized controlled trials that support the United States Preventive Services Task Force Guideline on screening for depression in primary care: a systematic review. BMC Med. 2014;12(1):13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Hahn DL
    . How practice-based research changed the way I manage depression. J Fam Pract. 2003;52(10):784–788.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Rost K,
    2. Dickinson LM,
    3. Fortney J,
    4. Westfall J,
    5. Hermann RC
    . Clinical improvement associated with conformance to HEDIS-based depression care. Ment Health Serv Res. 2005;7(2):103–112.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Crans Yoon A,
    2. Crawford W,
    3. Sheikh J,
    4. Nakahiro R,
    5. Gong A,
    6. Schatz M
    . The HEDIS Medication Management for People with Asthma Measure is Not Related to Improved Asthma Outcomes. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2015;3(4):547–552.
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Lowe T,
    2. Wilson R
    . Playing the game of outcomes-based performance management. Is Gamesmanship inevitable? Evidence from theory and practice. [published online ahead of print]. Soc Policy Adm. doi 10.1111/spol.12205.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. ↵
    1. Légaré F,
    2. Ratté S,
    3. Stacey D,
    4. et al
    . Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(5):CD006732.
  14. ↵
    1. Stacey D,
    2. Légaré F,
    3. Col NF,
    4. et al
    . Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;1(1):CD001431.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Hahn DL
    . Feasibility of sigmoidoscopic screening for bowel cancer in a primary care setting. J Am Board Fam Pract. 1989;2(1):25–29.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Hahn DL
    . Systematic cholesterol screening during acute care visits. J Am Board Fam Pract. 1993;6(6):529–536.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Hahn DL,
    2. Olson N
    . The delivery of clinical preventive services: acute care intervention. J Fam Pract. 1999;48(10):785–789.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Hahn DL,
    2. Berger MG
    . Implementation of a systematic health maintenance protocol in a private practice. J Fam Pract. 1990;31(5):492–502, discussion 502–504.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Etz RS,
    2. Gonzalez MM,
    3. Brooks EM,
    4. Stange KC
    . Less AND more are needed to assess primary care. J Am Board Fam Med. 2017;30(1):13–15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Blumenthal D,
    2. McGinnis JM
    . Measuring Vital Signs: an IOM report on core metrics for health and health care progress. JAMA. 2015;313(19):1901–1902.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 15 (3)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 15 (3)
Vol. 15, Issue 3
May/June 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
  • In Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Counterpoint: How Quality Reporting Made Me a Worse Doctor
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
1 + 1 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Counterpoint: How Quality Reporting Made Me a Worse Doctor
David L. Hahn
The Annals of Family Medicine May 2017, 15 (3) 206-208; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2077

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Counterpoint: How Quality Reporting Made Me a Worse Doctor
David L. Hahn
The Annals of Family Medicine May 2017, 15 (3) 206-208; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2077
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • PATIENT SATISFACTION
    • MEASURES BASED ON OPINION NOT EVIDENCE
    • PATIENT-ORIENTED MEASURES
    • ARBITRARY BENCHMARKS
    • SHARED DECISION MAKING
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • In This Issue: Innovations in Primary Care and at the Annals
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Is Prediabetes Overdiagnosed? No: A Clinician’s Perspective
  • Is Prediabetes Overdiagnosed? Yes: A Patient-Epidemiologist’s Experience
  • Medication-Assisted Treatment Should Be Part of Every Family Physician’s Practice: Yes
Show more Point/Counterpoint

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • quality improvement
  • quality measures
  • shared decision making

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine