In our current medical environment, which is characterized by oversight, accountability, practice guidelines, and documentation, it was inevitable that practice patterns would be monitored to rank compliance with guidelines as an index of the quality of care. It is a small step to a “pay-for-performance” approach, which is well intentioned because it uses data from clinical trials and guideline recommendations to reward physicians who are using treatment strategies known to be effective. Such an approach is aimed at identifying and reforming doctors who do not use “evidence-based” therapy.
Article see p 98
In this issue of Circulation: Heart Failure , Fonarow and colleagues1 review the data on >15000 patients with heart failure cared for in 167 outpatient cardiology practices in the United States. The results can be viewed as encouraging or discouraging, depending on your expectations, and as an optimistic step in the right direction to ensure quality care or as a depressing retreat from individualized …
[1]
Ralph D'Agostino,et al.
Combination of isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine in blacks with heart failure.
,
2004,
The New England journal of medicine.
[2]
J. Cohn,et al.
Racial differences in response to therapy for heart failure: analysis of the vasodilator-heart failure trials. Vasodilator-Heart Failure Trial Study Group.
,
1999,
Journal of cardiac failure.
[3]
M. Domanski,et al.
Lesser response to angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor therapy in black as compared with white patients with left ventricular dysfunction.
,
2001,
The New England journal of medicine.
[4]
C. O'connor,et al.
Heart Failure Care in the Outpatient Cardiology Practice Setting: Findings From IMPROVE HF
,
2008,
Circulation. Heart failure.
[5]
Daniel W. Jones,et al.
Seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure.
,
2003,
Hypertension.