Will physician-level measures of clinical performance be used in medical malpractice litigation?

JAMA

Volumn 295, Issue 15, 2006, Pages 1831-1834

  Kesselheim, Aaron S ^a,b   Ferris, Timothy G ^b   Studdert, David M ^a  

^a HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL COMPETENCE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; LAW SUIT; MALPRACTICE; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; NEGLIGENCE; NOTE; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHYSICIAN; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; QUALITY CONTROL; ARTICLE; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; UNITED STATES;

CLINICAL COMPETENCE; HUMANS; MALPRACTICE; PATIENT CARE MANAGEMENT; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33645800816     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: 15383598     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.295.15.1831     Document Type: Note

References (38)

1. Committee on Quality Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press; 2001.
2. Hibbard J, Pawlson LG. Why not give consumers a framework for understanding quality? Jt Comm J Qual Saf. 2004;30:347-351.
3. Rosenthal MB, Frank RG, Li Z, Epstein AM. Early experience with pay-for-performance. JAMA. 2005;294:1788-1793.
4. CMS Physician Focus Quality Initiative: Chronic Disease and Prevention Measures. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Web site. November 2005. Available at: http://new.cms.hhs.gov/PhysicianFocusedQualInits/downloads /PFQIClinicalMeasures200512.pdf. Accessibility verified March 14, 2006.
5. Landon BE, Normand S-LT, Blumenthal D, Daley J. Physician clinical performance assessment: prospects and barriers. JAMA. 2003;290:1183-1189.
6. Krumholz HM, Rathore SS, Chen J, Wang Y, Radford MJ. Evaluation of a consumer-oriented Internet health care report card: the risk of quality ratings based on mortality data. JAMA. 2002;287:1277-1287.
7. Schneider EC, Epstein AM. Use of public performance reports: a survey of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. JAMA. 1998;279:1638-1642.
8. Schneider EC, Epstein AM. Influence of cardiac-surgery performance reports on referral practices and access to care. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:251-256.
9. Lee TH, Meyer GS, Brennan TA. A middle ground on public accountability. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2409-2412.
10. Werner RM, Asch DA. The unintended consequences of publicly reporting quality information. JAMA. 2005;293:1239-1244.
11. Coble Y. Physician clinical performance assessment. Presented at: Commonwealth Fund Quality Improvement Colloquia; January 23, 2004; Washington, DC.
12. Robeznieks A. Education called key to acceptance of performance measures. amednews.com Web site. February 9, 2004. Available at: http://www.ama-assn .org/amednews/2004/02/09/prsb0209.htm. Accessibility verified March 14, 2006.
13. Donohue SK. Health care quality information liability and privilege. Ann Health Law. 2002;11:147-158.
14. Pennsylvania's Guide to Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery 2003. Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council Web site. March 2005. Available at: http://www.phc4.org/reports/cabg/03/. Accessibility verified March 14, 2006.
15. NCQA lauds National Quality Forum endorsement of ambulatory measures. National Committee for Quality Assurance Web site. May 16, 2005. Available at: http://www.ncqa.org/Communications/News/NQF_comment.htm. Accessibility verified March 14, 2006.
16. CMS Doctor's Office Quality Project Overview. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Web site. July 15, 2004. Available at: http://new.cms.hhs.gov /PhysicianFocusedQualInits/downloads/PFQIdoqOverview.pdf. Accessibility verified March 14, 2006.
17. 2004 Physician Group Quality Profile. Tufts Health Plan Web site. Available at: http://www.tuftshealthplan.com/pdf/2004_Phys_Grp_Quality_Profile.pdf. Accessibility verified March 14, 2006.
18. MHQP Physician Network Quality Report. Massachusetts Health Quality Partners Web site. February 2005. Available at: http://www.mhqp.org/quality/clinical /PDF/MHQP%20Physician%20Network%20Quality%20Report.pdf. Accessibility verfied March 14, 2006.
19. Diabetes Physician Recognition Program. National Committee for Quality Assurance Web site. 2004. Available at: http://www.ncqa.org/physicianqualityreports .htm. Accessibility verified March 14, 2006.
20. Terry K. What "tiered networks" will mean to you. Med Econ. 2004;81:45-49.
21. Fed R Evid 401 (2005).
22. Fed R Evid 403 (2005).
23. Sue S, Smith RE, Caldwell C. Effects of inadmissible evidence on the decisions of simulated jurors: a moral dilemma. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1973;3:345-353.
24. Teitelbaum LE, Sutton-Barbere G, Johnson P. Evaluating the prejudicial effect of evidence: can judges identify the impact of improper evidence on juries? Wisc Law Rev. 1983:1147-1201.
25. Wissler RL, Saks MJ. On the inefficacy of limiting instructions: when jurors use prior conviction evidence to decide on guilt. Law Hum Behav. 1985;9:37-48.
26. Gash J. Punitive damages, other acts, and the Constitution. Utah Law Rev. 2004:1191-1277.
27. Bowie GM. Rule 404(b)'s "other acts" character flaw. S Carolina Law Rev. 2002;54:495-517.
28. Imwinkelried EJ. Uncharged Misconduct Evidence 2:4. Rev ed. St Paul, Minn: West; 2003.
29. Fed R Evid, Advisory Committee's note to Rule 404(b) (2005).
30. United States v Jerkins, 871 F2d 598 (6th Cir Ct App 1989).
31. Fairshter v American Nat'l Red Cross, 322 F Supp2d 646 (E Dist Virg 2004).
32. Crawford v Yellow Cab, 572 F Supp 1205 (N Dist Ill 1983).
33. Jones v Southern Pacific Railroad, 962 F2d 447 (5th Cir Ct App 1992).
34. Hackbart v Cincinnati Bengals, 601 F2d 516 (10th Cir Ct App 1979).
35. Kunnanz v Edge, 515 NW2d 167 (Sup Ct N Dakota 1994).
36. Farr v Wright, 833 SW2d 597 (Ct of App Tex 1992).
37. Gasiorowski v Hose, 897 P2d 678 (Ct of App Ariz 1994).
38. Institute of Medicine. Committee on Redesigning Health Insurance Performance Measures, Payment, and Performance Improvement Programs. Performance Measurement: Accelerating Improvement. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006.