• Elizabeth A McGlynn, Steven M Asch, John Adams, Joan Keesey, Jennifer Hicks, Alison DeCristofaro, and Eve A Kerr.
• RAND, Santa Monica, Calif 90407, USA. beth_mcglynn@rand.org
• N. Engl. J. Med. 2003 Jun 26; 348 (26): 263526452635-45.

BackgroundWe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsParticipants 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.ConclusionsThe 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.Copyright 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society

13 keywords...

hide…