You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 292 No. 11, September 15, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related articles
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Oncology
 •Colon Cancer
 •Quality of Care
 •Quality of Care, Other
 •Gastroenterology
 •Gastrointestinal Diseases
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Pitfalls of Converting Practice Guidelines Into Quality Measures—Reply

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In Reply: We agree with Dr Pawlson and colleagues and Drs Fleming and Petzel that using a random sample of patients will improve the CRC screening performance measure, and we are delighted that the VHA has made this change. However, we disagree that sample selection was the only problem needing correction. In our article we discussed the need for better measures that consider not only who received testing for CRC, but why it was done and whether the patient wanted it. Pawlson et al make several assumptions that diagnostic tests and refusals will be randomly distributed across samples from different facilities and therefore will not affect target rates (benchmarks). We believe these are tenuous and untested assumptions that require further research to determine whether they are true. Since VHA performs chart reviews, it has a unique opportunity to validate these assumptions.

In addition, both letters assume that higher screening rates . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Louise C. Walter, MD
louisew@itsa.ucsf.edu
Division of Geriatrics
VA Medical Center

Paul A. Heineken, MD; Kenneth E. Covinsky, MD, MPH
San Francisco, Calif



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLES

Cancer Screening in Elderly Patients: A Framework for Individualized Decision Making
and
JAMA. ;285():2750-2756.
FULL TEXT  

Cervical Cancer Screening Among Women Without a Cervix
and
JAMA. ;291():2990-2993.
FULL TEXT  

Pitfalls of Converting Practice Guidelines Into Quality Measures
, , and
JAMA. ;292():1301-1301.
FULL TEXT  

Pitfalls of Converting Practice Guidelines Into Quality Measures
and
JAMA. ;292():1301-1302.
FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2004 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.