Quality versus variance: a plea for a different focus and terminology

Much has been written about quality assurance in medical practice over the past 15 years. Medicine suddenly found itself trying to design systems that ensured that medicine was being practiced according to standards of quality when it had neither a definition of its product nor defined standards of practice. Consequently, early quality assurance programs focused primarily on documentation of patient care. As the process matured, it evolved to generic screens, with tolerances and outliers. The theory was that the quality of medical care was enhanced by physicians who practiced within often artificially established norms and was diminished by physicians who practiced outside those same norms. It was much like saying that the quality of manufacturing a new car could be improved by reducing all systems down to one of closely standardizing, observing, and documenting how each individual assembly worker put on a lock nut and then holding each worker independently accountable for the final quality of the care. Physicians felt they were being held responsible for conforming to a rigid set of poorly designed and retrospectively applied standards. Moreover, they were held accountable for applying those standards to all practice situations. Understandably, physicians felt at the mercy of nonphysician quality assurance "detectives" in hospitals and became increasingly suspicious of nurses and administrators, who were perceived as abusing the system at the expense of the physicians. Because of these inadequacies of the earlier quality assurance programs, paranoia among physicians about the quality assurance process remains rampant today. The use of blind outcome scores and practice patterns in credentialing and the reporting of these data to databanks have reinforced the paranoia.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)