Skip to main content

Measuring Physician Quality - Bully or Just Plain Bull

Patients are amazing creatures.   The current breed is hyperinformed on medical information and has an ever expanding reservoir of physician data to trove through.  I’m not just referring to physician reviews on Angie’s list.  Soon, the public will be encouraged to review our success and failure rates with respect to medical treatments, how much cash the drug companies grease us with, all disciplinary actions, comparison with peers, complication rates, medical malpractice entanglements and how much Medicare reimbursement we have received.

There will be published quality benchmarks on physicians so that the public can see how their physicians scored on these various quality measurements.  I have opined throughout this blog that I feel that these measurements are tantamount to taurine excrement.   Sadly, reimbursement will be tied to these results with physicians who don’t rate high enough having some of their income confiscated.  Physicians who don’t make the grade may game the system to achieve higher grades, which has nothing to do with true medical quality.  Is that what our patients want and deserve?

Source of Taurine Excrement

I was poised to begin a colonoscopy on an informed woman who asked me what my ADR was.  I will presume that readers are not aware of what this means.  Most physicians are likely also ignorant of what these letters stand for.  In fact, I’ll bet a decent percentage of gastroenterologists are clueless here as well.  The ADR refers to the Adenoma Detection Rate, which is one of the silly statistics that ‘experts’ feel separate skilled colonoscopists from pretenders.  Adenomas are polyps which are precursors to colon cancer and are the target lesion for screening colonoscopies.  When you consent to undergo a colonic delight at age 50, your gastroenterologist is seeking out adenomas, removing them before they can morph into a cancerous condition.

‘Experts’ advise that competent gastroenterologists should have an ADR of 25% in males and 15% in females who are undergoing screening colonoscopies.  Lower rates, they claim, suggest sloppy or rushed examinations.   Now, some colonoscopists are removing every pimple they find to make sure they will surpass these thresholds.  Does this sound like good medicine?

Remember, colon polyps are surrogate markers.   The true objective of colonoscopy is to prevent cancer, not finding small benign polyps.  A patient should be more interested to know if their gastroenterologist prevents colon cancer, which is not that easy to measure.   In contrast, measuring the ADR is simple, so it is used as a substitute for colon cancer prevention because it is so easy to do.   Similarly, the statin drug companies boast about their cholesterol lowering properties, which is easy to measure.  Cholesterol levels are also surrogate markers for what we should really care about – heart attacks and strokes – events that can’t be studied and measured as easily as simple blood test results.  A surrogate marker ‘benefit’ may not lead to the desired medical outcome, despite claims that it will.

My nurse assured the inquisitive woman on the gurney that my ADR was above threshold.   Am I a high quality gastroenterologist?   I must be.  I’ve got ADR mojo.    Let’s give a shout out to the government and the insurance companies for adopting the ADR standard.  Can we agree that it’s Another Dumb Regulation?


  1. I agree that our focus on surrogate markers is often foolish, but the challenge is for us to come up with ways to measure quality. As the potion of the GDP consumed by health care approaches 20% (1 in 5 dollars spent), we are sinking a ridiculous amount of money into activities which appear to have no clear measure of quality or value.

    The challenge is for you and your GI colleagues to come up with some way of determining who does the best work. Take a hypothetical case where I am a gastroenterologist who puts people under but does not even look. How could the quality of my work be shown objectively to have worse outcomes than someone who was meticulous in terms of their exam? If there is no way to show a difference, why are we bothering to do the exam in the first place?

    You are not unique in GI. While the particulars may be different in different specialties, the similarities are there, especially for those doing screening exams to avoid low frequency events.

  2. @MC, thanks for your thoughtful comment. While I am not certain how gastro MD's, or other specialists can offer a rubric that truly measures quality, the current system fails. Look at the nat'l controversy and tension over measuring teachers' quality? Not easy to do! The current systems for measuring medical quality are poorly veiled systems to cut cost, in my view. Additionally, they were designed and implemented without meaningful input from physicians and medical professions. If the agenda of the committee is to cut costs, guess what the final product will look like?

  3. I prefer my own silent "protest."
    Whenever I get a Press Gainey form to fill out for a physician, I try to give h/her all perfect scores.
    Yes, they get the best possible scores from me because I think that this is all ridiculous.
    I know for a fact that none of my doctors are perfect, but I don't care.

    That being said, this has been going on for a long time in other jobs, so why do physicians think they should be exempt?


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Most Doctors Choose Employment

Increasingly, physicians today are employed and most of them willingly so.  The advantages of this employment model, which I will highlight below, appeal to the current and emerging generations of physicians and medical professionals.  In addition, the alternatives to direct employment are scarce, although they do exist.  Private practice gastroenterology practices in Cleveland, for example, are increasingly rare sightings.  Another practice model is gaining ground rapidly on the medical landscape.   Private equity (PE) firms have   been purchasing medical practices who are in need of capital and management oversight.   PE can provide services efficiently as they may be serving multiple practices and have economies of scale.   While these physicians technically have authority over all medical decisions, the PE partners can exert behavioral influences on physicians which can be ethically problematic. For example, if the PE folks reduce non-medical overhead, this may very directly affe

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

Solutions for Medical Burnout

Over the past few months, I’ve written enough posts on Medical Burnout that I have created a new category to house them.  Readers will find there posts detailing the causes and consequences of burnout in the medical profession. The profession has been long on the causes but short on solutions.   What must be done to loosen the burnout shackles from medical professionals? It will be a huge undertaking for caregivers and society at large to turn this ocean liner around.  And it will take time.  The first step must be to obtain a commitment to the overall mission from as many constituents as possible.   Support will be needed from medical professionals, hospital leadership and administrators, physician employers, insurance companies and the public.   As with many reform efforts, many of the players must be willing to sacrifice some of their own interests in order to server the greater good – a worthy and rare event.   Without adequate buy-in from stakeholders, the effort will never ge