Skip to main content

Why Medical Quality Programs Fail

In medicine, there are many facts and figures that can be easily measured. Here are examples of data that is being diligently recorded and scrutinized by medical number-crunchers across the country.

  • Hospital deaths
  • Volume of hospital and individual physician surgeries and medical procedures
  • Average # hospital days for specific illnesses
  • % of a physician’s practice who have undergone preventative medical testing
  • # minutes the gastroenterologist’s colonoscope spends within the colon (This is not a joke!)
  • A physician’s medical malpractice history
  • Automobile the physician drives. (This is a joke!)
  • # and % primary physician referrals to specialists
  • $$ that physician expends per patient per specific medical condition

I could have made this list a lot longer, but you get the idea here. Sure, you can collect and measure all kinds of medical data, but this doesn’t measure medical quality. Since the government and insurance companies have no reliable way to measure quality, they have opted instead to measure what can be easily counted, as if these are actual quality benchmarks. This is the fallacy of these ‘quality’ programs. Consider a hypothetical example. If Physician A has an 80% mammogram rate in his practice while Physician B has a 50% rate, is the former doctor a higher quality practitioner? Not necessarily. What if Physician B’s patients are not health conscious and don’t pursue preventative care? Is this the doctor’s fault? Of course, not, but he may be assigned a lower quality score anyway.

Next posting, what you can learn about medical quality in an art museum!


  1. There is much written on the internet to suggest that Belgium has a system which might offer insight. I copied below from a site but hesitated to take up space by putting too much information on your site.

    Belgium has some of the lowest rates of hospital bourne infections such as MRSA consequently the patient to patient infection rate is nil.

  2. I thank you for the comment and agree we should be imitating others who have higher medical quality. I don't think we have to go as far as Europe, as there are many institutions here who are cracking the code against preventable complications. Reducing hospital infections is not an easy task considering that we still can't get physicians, nurses and hospital visitors to wash their hands. For many of us in medicine, reducing infections is not itself a sufficient incentive to change our behavior.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why This Doctor Gave Up Telemedicine

During the pandemic, I engaged in telemedicine with my patients out of necessity.  This platform was already destined to become part of the medical landscape even prior to the pandemic.  COVID-19 accelerated the process.  The appeal is obvious.  Patients can have medical visits from their own homes without driving to the office, parking, checking in, finding their way to the office, biding time in the waiting room and then driving out afterwards.  And patients could consult physicians from far distances, even across state lines.  Most of the time invested in traditional office visits occurs before and after the actual visits.  So much time wasted! Indeed, telemedicine has answered the prayers of time management enthusiasts. At first, I was also intoxicated treating patients via cyberspace, or telemedically, if I may invent a term.   I could comfortably sink into my own couch in sweatpants as I guided patients through the heartbreak of hemorrhoids and the distress of diarrhea.   Clear

Am I Spreading Covid-19 Misinformation?

I presume that most of us are hostile to hate speech, misinformation and disinformation.  Politicians and others want social media to be scrubbed of all nefarious postings.  Twitter is most recently in the crosshairs on this issue after Elon Musk assumed ownership of the company.  They still haven’t settled on a moderation policy.  Social media and other information sources have been accused of radicalizing Americans, fostering hate, undermining our elections, providing a forum for bullies and predators, promoting division and coarsening our national discourse.  One man’s cleansing of disinformation is another man’s censorship. There is some speech that all reasonable people would agree should be banned, such as incitement to violence or prurient matter that children can access.   I challenge those who advocate against publishing hate speech, misinformation or disinformation to offer precise definitions of these categories.   Trust me, this is no easy endeavor.     And if you are

Whistleblower Grand Rounds Vol. 6 No. 22: It’s ‘Alimentary’, Doctors!

It’s been a while since I’ve attended a conventional medical Grand Rounds. These were events where a medical luminary would fly in to give a medical audience a state-of-the-art presentation on a medical subject. Ideally, the speaker was a thought leader and a researcher on the issue. These presentations were usually not a demonstration of the virtue of humility. We physicians, as a class, have generous egos. Academic physicians occupy a higher rung on the ego ladder. Medical Grand Rounders (MGRs), who are on the GR speaking circuit, often must bring their own ladders to assure they will be able to reach their desired atmospheric height. Jacob’s Ladder Photo Credit At least in the old days, before the GR speaker would assume his position behind the rostrum, a designated pre-speaker would offer an introduction. The audience would hear a list of awards, achievements, journal editorial positions, department chairmanships, honorary degrees, publications and book chapter authorships,