More quality measures versus measuring what matters: A call for balance and parsimony

Gregg S. Meyer, Eugene C. Nelson, David B. Pryor, Brent James, Stephen J. Swensen, Gary S. Kaplan, Jed I. Weissberg, Maureen Bisognano, Gary R. Yates, Gordon C. Hunt

Research output: Contribution to journalShort survey

72 Scopus citations

Abstract

External groups requiring measures now include public and private payers, regulators, accreditors and others that certify performance levels for consumers, patients and payers. Although benefits have accrued from the growth in quality measurement, the recent explosion in the number of measures threatens to shift resources from improving quality to cover a plethora of quality-performance metrics that may have a limited impact on the things that patients and payers want and need (ie, better outcomes, better care, and lower per capita costs). Here we propose a policy that quality measurement should be: balanced to meet the need of end users to judge quality and cost performance and the need of providers to continuously improve the quality, outcomes and costs of their services; and parsimonious to measure quality, outcomes and costs with appropriate metrics that are selected based on end-user needs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)964-968
Number of pages5
JournalBMJ Quality and Safety
Volume21
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2012

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'More quality measures versus measuring what matters: A call for balance and parsimony'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Meyer, G. S., Nelson, E. C., Pryor, D. B., James, B., Swensen, S. J., Kaplan, G. S., Weissberg, J. I., Bisognano, M., Yates, G. R., & Hunt, G. C. (2012). More quality measures versus measuring what matters: A call for balance and parsimony. BMJ Quality and Safety, 21(11), 964-968. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001081