Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: We have little systematic information about the extent to which standard processes involved in health care--a key element of quality--are delivered in the United States. METHODS: We telephoned a random sample of adults living in 12 metropolitan areas in the United States and asked them about selected health care experiences. We also received written consent to copy their medical records for the most recent two-year period and used this information to evaluate performance on 439 indicators of quality of care for 30 acute and chronic conditions as well as preventive care. We then constructed aggregate scores. RESULTS: Participants received 54.9 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 54.3 to 55.5) of recommended care. We found little difference among the proportion of recommended preventive care provided (54.9 percent), the proportion of recommended acute care provided (53.5 percent), and the proportion of recommended care provided for chronic conditions (56.1 percent). Among different medical functions, adherence to the processes involved in care ranged from 52.2 percent for screening to 58.5 percent for follow-up care. Quality varied substantially according to the particular medical condition, ranging from 78.7 percent of recommended care (95 percent confidence interval, 73.3 to 84.2) for senile cataract to 10.5 percent of recommended care (95 percent confidence interval, 6.8 to 14.6) for alcohol dependence. CONCLUSIONS: The deficits we have identified in adherence to recommended processes for basic care pose serious threats to the health of the American public. Strategies to reduce these deficits in care are warranted.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Elizabeth A. McGlynn
Steven M. Asch
John Adams
New England Journal of Medicine
University of Michigan
University of California, Los Angeles
RAND Corporation
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
McGlynn et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/6a073b3285d51e7cc758461c — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmsa022615
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: