Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21993998›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2012

Unintended consequences of implementing a national performance measurement system into local practice.

Adam A Powell, Katie M White, Melissa R Partin, Krysten Halek, Jon B Christianson, Brian Neil, Sylvia J Hysong, Edwin J Zarling, Hanna E Bloomfield

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Health Care Professionals' Perceptions of Pay-for-Performance in Practice: A Qualitative Metasynthesis.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. User-centered design to improve clinical decision support in primary care.International journal of medical informatics · 2017
    Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Adam A PowellCore Research Investigator, Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research (CCDOR), Minneapolis VA Health Care System, One Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55417, USA. Adam.Powell@va.gov
Katie M White
Melissa R Partin
Krysten Halek
Jon B Christianson
Brian Neil
Sylvia J Hysong
Edwin J Zarling
Hanna E Bloomfield

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough benefits of performance measurement (PM) systems have been well documented, there is little research on negative unintended consequences of performance measurement systems in primary care. To optimize PM systems, a better understanding is needed of the types of negative unintended consequences that occur and of their causal antecedents.

objectives(1) Identify unintended negative consequences of PM systems for patients. (2) Develop a conceptual framework of hypothesized relationships between PM systems, facility-level variables (local implementation strategies, primary care staff attitudes and behaviors), and unintended negative effects on patients. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, APPROACH: Qualitative study design using dissimilar cases sampling. A series of 59 in-person individual semi-structured interviews at four Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities was conducted between February and July 2009. Participants included members of primary care staff and facility leaders. Sites were selected to assure variability in the number of veterans served and facility scores on national VHA performance measures. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and content coded to identify thematic categories and relationships.

resultsParticipants noted both positive effects and negative unintended consequences of PM. We report three negative unintended consequences for patients. Performance measurement can (1) lead to inappropriate clinical care, (2) decrease provider focus on patient concerns and patient service, and (3) compromise patient education and autonomy. We also illustrate examples of negative consequences on primary care team dynamics. In many instances these problems originate from local implementation strategies developed in response to national PM definitions and policies.

conclusionsFacility-level strategies undertaken to implement national PM systems may result in inappropriate clinical care, can distract providers from patient concerns, and may have a negative effect on patient education and autonomy. Further research is needed to ascertain how features of centralized PM systems influence whether measures are translated locally by facilities into more or less patient-centered policies and processes.

Indexed as

Efficiency, OrganizationalProfessional-Patient RelationsUncertaintyBenchmarkingHealth Care SurveysHealth Status IndicatorsHumansPrimary Health CarePsychometricsQualitative ResearchQuality of Health CareUnited StatesUnited States Department of Veterans Affairs

Identifiers

PMID21993998
PMCPMC3304045

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.