This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Hirshfeld, E. B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hirshfeld, E. B. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Practice Parameters Versus Outcome Measurements

How Will Prospective and Retrospective Approaches to Quality Management Fit Together?

Associate General Counsel for Health Law, American Medical Association, Chicago

There have been increasing efforts to manage quality and costs in health care. Two tools that are used to do this are practice parameters and outcome measurements. Practice parameters are strategies for patient management to assist clinicians in clinical decision making. Outcome measurements inform clinicians and the public about performance in the delivery of care. Federal and state health care legislation make use of these two concepts as a way to monitor and improve quality and costs, reduce liability, and in some cases, promote competition. Practice guidelines are more limiting to clinicians, but may reduce their liability and help some meet expected clinical outcomes. Outcome criteria alone provide more flexibility to clinicians in deciding how to improve clinical outcome and reduce costs, and enable patients to select care givers on the basis of performance.

Nutrition in Clinical Practice, Vol. 9, No. 6, 207-215 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/0115426594009006207


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?