Time for Quality in Quality Studies


Where is the separation between the Church of Research and the State of Research?

A Rough Guide to Spotting Bad Science is being used to outline the many problems with current research in areas such as in quality and in primary care.

Research Process 

The institutions and individuals involved in research are limited to a select few.  Only certain types of carefully screened individuals have access to the data or the research funding. Not surprisingly the data is processed in carefully screened ways.

Journals, editors, and their publicists help lead the charge to obtain or disseminate results that they would like to see. Researcher careers and academic careers are promoted or ended based on findings rather than the quality of their work. This helps shape rigid thinking, failure of problem solving, and status quo rather than progress. 

The priority placed upon innovation may actually distract the nation from solutions that have worked. Innovation is catchy but is often developed by those most distant from care delivery. This is a constant problem in primary care.

Sensationalized Headlines 

There has been widespread rapid promotion of desired results. Minimal attention is given to studies that are critical. Studies have also indicated that journalists have made matters worse with incorrect or exaggerated headlines or articles. Jumping on the bandwagon or creating controversy are just two of the means to the ends of selling advertising or gaining more attention. Unfortunately what is popular is often not correct.

Misinterpreted Results/Speculative Language 

Authors, reviewers, and editors often fail to be critical about the language used to describe results – especially if it fits what they believe or what they advocate. This is compounded by vague definitions of what is being studied or measured – especially cost of care, quality, or access. 

Misinterpretations abound in health care. Cost, quality, and access have always been the three most important areas in health care delivery. Cost and quality actually cannot exist without access, but the experts ignore these basics just as they ignore the workforce to address access, cost, and quality. New Triple Aims, Quadruple Aims, and various interpretations have become popular.

Access to care has been equated with insurance access. Apparently it will take some time for those who still believe in flawed regression equations to understand that there is a vast difference between research equations and the reality of the process of health care.

Primary care and mental health are paid too little by insurance plans to pay for the team members to deliver access to care. Government plans are the worse and contribute the most to access barriers. Too little paid equals too little access and situations are worsened where basic services dominate and are paid less.

Correlation and Causation 

These flawed regression equation studies date back to quality studies such as To Err Is Human - the IOM study which has led to the great medical error distraction. Other studies correlate insurance access with care outcomes - conveniently skipping the contributions of patients, workforce, and other situations and relationships. The focus upon error and the focus upon insurance access has effectively prevented investments in areas that could matter.

Correlation is not causation. Numerous patient factors and situations contribute to errors. Quality is about 60 - 70% patient situations, relationships, and determinants. This study led the charge to focus attention upon the 10 - 20% of outcomes that could be addressed by clinical interventions.

exhibited serious errors. Packing equations to get the desired results is common plus failure to include variables that would explain the results – insuring that the findings are significant or are exaggerated.


Process - Pediatric and primary care associations have invested much time and effort in the Primary Care Medical Home. Foundations have supported much of the research. 

Headlines - Journals have rushed to publish the findings.

A realistic interpretation of Primary Care Medical Home is mixed results and too early to tell. (References Schwenk, Abrams, Jackson and Williams References)



Misinterpreted Results/Speculative Language - Studies have been far too brief and definitions are vague as are measures.

Overall Impact

New associations promoting primary care have been formed and prosper based on their promotions. Research careers prosper or suffer based on the findings.

In the meantime, primary care is not better and may actually be worse off. New distractions prevent primary care practices from receiving the funding to deliver more primary care, primary care where needed, and primary care that reaches out into patient populations and communities.

Even worse, accelerating costs of delivery can shrink dollars remaining for care. Primary care medical home costs $105,000 per primary care physician per year. These are dollars spent on consultants, certifications, and other non-delivery costs. Certifications do not reflect levels of performance. Quality focus requires over $40,000 per year per physician and is increasing. Each year quality reporting requires 785 hours a year from physicians. It is quite clear that encounters per primary care physician can only shrink as will access.

This article does a critical review of Primary Care Medical Home, indicates the problems with studies and measures, and proposes ways to actually measure value - something not measured well so far.



A Rough Guide to Spotting Bad Science

Pressures Mount for ACA Changes

The Real Kerfuffle - How much chaos can family physicians stand?

IOM Panel Calls for Training in Social Determinants (But Needs Such Training)

Is the IOM Waking Up?

Declines in Health Care Delivery Despite Increases in Health Spending - If We Keep Accelerating Non-Delivery Costs, We Can Continue to Remain Behind Health Care Demand


Primary care can be recovered and should be recovered.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Another Fine CMS You Have Gotten Us Into

Perhaps we are indeed back to the time of Another Fine Mess (Laurel and Hardy). In a mad rush to implement innovation and to save all possible costs, CMS is creating complications for people that it is most responsible to protect. As PBS and Ken Burns celebrate the legacy of The Roosevelts, it is tragic to see what has become of over a century of effort involving Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and health care equity. The United States has one of the most complex health designs and clearly the various designers often know not what they are doing to others. More cartoons and comedians would find this a ripe area for material if not for the suffering involved. Health and Human Services has a huge role across Social Security and US health care. CMS or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has a dominant role to play in the design of health care in the United States.  CMS can be progressive or regressive. Interestingly CMS has chosen to appear to be progressive and in
Read more

The Essential True Reform Restores Primary Care and Much More

The list of distractions from True Reform are impressive. For decades True Reform has been specifically avoided as primary care worsens within practices and from outside. The demise is most specifically about the financial design. Unless there is a focus on True Reform, there is little hope for Basic Health Access. This may not make as much sense to those outside of family medicine. Family physicians not familiar with AAFP may also be clueless. If you think that you can fix primary care with more technology, more rearrangements, more types of health professional graduates, or more expansions of training - think again. None of these have any hope of working without financial design changes - major changes. The following are various concepts that dominate the discussions at AAFP and primary care meetings and media releases of associations and foundations and institutions. Members, staff, media releases, programs, and personnel have been reviewed.  There is little about Tru
Read more

Innovation Is the Problem Not the Solution for Worsening Health

Image
Innovation is good. Innovation worship is not good. Innovation application without scientific testing or clinical trials is unethical regarding clinical interventions and should be just as prohibited with regard to health policy. Clinical trials can harm hundreds or thousands. Innovative policies can harm millions. It takes a reasonable understanding of health care, health care outcomes, social determinants, and the investments that most improve social determinants to understand the consequences arising from the innovative nightmares past, present, and future. If you review the information sources with a critical eye, you too may find that the innovative policy designs have been disruptive to care, have hurt health care where health care is most needed, have reduced access to care, and have resulted in distortions in the literature. Indeed what is accepted and published in journals seriously lacks consideration of alternative hypothesis, lacks inclusion of many pages of limitatio
Read more