This Article  • References  • 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  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

F. Andrew Morfesis, MD
Grays Knob, Ky

JAMA. 1991;266(21):2983.

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

To the Editor.

— I do not agree that the observations by Brennan et al¹ "may represent an important improvement on existing measures of quality," ie, outcome-based measures. My disagreement can be understood by considering a hypothetical premise that illustrates a significant potential bias in the article by Brennan et al.

My premise is that academic physician specialists are uncomfortable with outcome-based measures of quality of care because this puts them on equal footing with nonacademic physicians. Further, they prefer the concept of negligence-based quality assurance because this enables academic-based reviewers to insert a subtle bias in favor of teaching hospitals.

In the article by Brennan et al, a group of academic-based reviewers (or, at least, physician reviewers selected by academic-based reviewers and likely to be sympathetic to them) reviewed charts of about 50 hospitals. The reviewers were likely to be personally familiar with some of these institutions, while . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Footnotes
Edited by Drummond Rennie, MD, Deputy Editor (West), and Bruce B. Dan, MD, Senior Editor.

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