PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9456425

Improving clinical effectiveness: a practical approach.

Abstract

The publication of the government white paper 'Working for Patients' (1989, HMSO) and implementation of subsequent NHS reforms has led to the development of a great number of initiatives designed to improve the quality of patient care and to make the provision of care more clinically and cost effective. Many of these initiatives, whilst laudable, have been developed in isolation and often without proper consideration of how they relate to one another or might practically be implemented throughout the NHS. It has commonly been the case that attempts to transfer the initiative from an environment of high enthusiasm and, often, high resource to the NHS in general has either failed or led to poor application. Strategies to improve clinical effectiveness have not become a feature of the everyday practice of many, let alone most or all, clinicians in the NHS. The result has been their failure significantly to raise standards of care across the NHS as a whole. It is suggested that many of the initiatives are closely related, and more effective implementation in the NHS as a whole may follow attempts to integrate them in a more practical approach to care management within an organization-wide clinical effectiveness strategy. It is further suggested that this is best achieved by a continuous quality improvement approach focusing on the care process as the centrepiece of the initiative, and that this method will lead to significant improvements not only in clinical effectiveness but also in cost effectiveness. This paper describes a proposed method of achieving these goals.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

E Waters. 1997. Improving clinical effectiveness: a practical approach.. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2753.1997.t01-1-00002.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Providing guidance to the NHS: The Scottish Medicines Consortium and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence compared.

There is wide acceptance that cost-effectiveness is a relevant consideration when deciding which treatments to make available in publicly funded health services. An unresolved issue concerns the timing and the extent of such evaluations. The United Kingdom provides examples of two distinct approaches. The Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) provides guidance to the NHS in Scotland based on a rapid early review of the evidence. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) provides guidance to the NHS in England and Wales based on a later, more extensive review of the evidence. This paper explores how the difference in approach affects the role of the pharmaceutical industry, clinical experts and other stakeholders. It compares the guidance produced when both bodies have evaluated the same medicines. It addresses the general question of when to assess the cost-effectiveness of medicines. It concludes that there are important differences between the approaches of SMC and NICE, relating primarily to the timing of the review of evidence on clinical and cost-effectiveness. The difference in timing means that the activities of the two bodies are to a large extent complementary.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

The growing mismatch between patient longevity and the service life of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are lifesaving devices. Over 100,000 patients received ICDs in 2004 at a cost of $2 billion for the pulse generators alone. Because of expanded indications and coverage by Medicare, the number of ICD implantations and replacements is expected to increase dramatically during the next decade. The average ICD patient at our institution now lives nearly 10 years after the procedure. However, the service life of pulse generators has decreased from 4.7 +/- 1 year for single-chamber units to 4.0 +/- 1 year for dual-chamber devices. This mismatch between patient longevity and the service life of ICDs poses a significant clinical and economic burden that must be addressed. One near-term solution is for manufacturers to provide devices with larger batteries so that most patients can have an ICD pulse generator that lasts a lifetime. For the long-term, more robust or renewable energy sources are needed.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗