Cited by 15Healthcare Quality and ManagementHealthcare cost, quality, practicesClinical practice guidelines implementation

Variation in Clinical Practice: A Priority Setting Approach to the Staged Funding of Quality Improvement

Karnon, Jonathan, Partington, Andrew, Horsfall, Matthew, Chew, Derek·2016·Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

Abstract

Variation in adherence to clinical guidelines, and in the organisation and delivery of health care significantly impact patient outcomes and health service costs. Despite mounting evidence of variation in clinical practice, the funds allocated to improve the quality of existing services remain small, relative to the resources allocated to new technologies. Quality improvement is a complex intervention, with a lack of focus on outcomes, and greater uncertainty around its effects. These factors have contributed to a relatively narrow, mainstream view of quality improvement as focussing on safety, with efforts to improve adherence to best practice limited to high profile clinical areas. This paper presents an analysis of linked, routinely collected data to identify variation in patient outcomes and processes of care across hospitals for patients presenting with low-risk chest pain. Such analyses provide a low cost, broadly applicable approach to identifying potentially important areas of variation in clinical practice, to inform the prioritisation of more detailed analyses to validate, and further investigate the causes of variation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40258-015-0160-y

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Karnon, J., Partington, A., Horsfall, M., & Chew, D.
Affiliations
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
  • South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (AU)
  • Flinders University (AU)
Corresponding author
Karnon, Jonathan
Venue
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Published
2015-02-28
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
21-27
ISSN
  • 1175-5652 (ISSN-L)
  • 1179-1896
OpenAlex
W2102056135
Cited by
15
References
26
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
4.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Applied Health Economics and Health Policy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Funders
HCF Research Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
clinical practice variation, priority setting, clinical guideline adherence, low-risk chest pain, patient outcomes, process of care, hospital variation, administrative data, health care costs, safety
MeSH terms
Cardiovascular Diseases, Female, Health Priorities, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Health Care Costs, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Guideline Adherence, Quality Improvement, Healthcare Financing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review