Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T16:06:33.434Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Clinician report cards and the limits of evidence-based patient choice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 August 2009

Michael Parker
Affiliation:
University of Oxford, UK
Steve Clarke
Affiliation:
University of Oxford and Charles Sturt University, New South Wales
Justin Oakley
Affiliation:
Monash University, Victoria
Get access

Summary

Evidence-based patient choice

The concept of ‘evidence-based patient choice’ brings together two developments of ethical importance in contemporary medicine: evidence-based medicine and the growth of patient-centredness (Parker, 2001). The concept of evidence-based medicine, whilst problematic in many respects, encapsulates the belief that decision-making in medicine should be justified on the basis of good-quality evidence for the effectiveness of the intervention rather than on the basis of tradition, established models of practice, clinician preference and authority or other grounds. Patient-centred medicine too has arisen out of a concern with, and a critical response to, traditional medical practice and in particular to its over-emphasis on the authority of the health care professional. To some extent, this latter development has been driven by broader social changes outside medicine including a greater willingness to challenge the decisions of professionals including those of health professionals and to require such decisions to be both accountable and transparent. It is also related to relatively rapid developments in medical science and technology, which have created, along with social changes, an ever-increasing range of ethical questions with regard to which patient values vary significantly. Thirdly, and related to the other two, the move to patient centredness, and indeed to evidence-based medicine, has also been driven by increased media attention on developments in medical technology and by public and media discussion of scandals in medicine and in medical research.

Type
Chapter
Information
Informed Consent and Clinician Accountability
The Ethics of Report Cards on Surgeon Performance
, pp. 27 - 40
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry (2001). Learning from Bristol: the report of the public inquiry into children's heart surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary 1984–1995. Command Paper. CM5207. Available at www.bristol-inquiry.org.uk/index.htm.
Clarke, S. and Oakley, J. (2004). Informed consent and surgeons' performance. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 29, 11–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elwyn, G. and Edwards, A. (2001). Evidence Based Patient Care. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Emanuel, E. J. and Emanuel, L. L. (1992). Four models of the physician-patient relationship 1992. Journal of the American Medical Association, 267, 2221–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
General Medical Council. (2000). Seeking Patients' Consent: The Ethical Considerations. London: General Medical Council.
Healthcare Commission (2006). Press release: ‘Patients now have access to rates of survival for health surgery for the first time’. www.healthcarecommission.org.uk. Published April 27th. (Accessed 12th June 2006).
Hope, T. (1997). Evidence-based Patient Choice. London: The King's Fund.Google Scholar
Mukamel, D. B., Weimer, D. L. and Zwanziger, J. (2004/5). Quality report cards, selection of cardiac surgeons and racial disparities: a study of the publication of the New York State cardiac surgery reports. Inquiry, 41, 435–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neil, D. A., Clarke, S. and Oakley, J. G. (2004). Public reporting of individual surgeon performance information: United Kingdom developments and Australian issues. Medical Journal of Australia, 181, 266–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Parker, M. (2001). The ethics of evidence-based patient choice. Health Expectations, 4, 87–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richard, S. A., Rawal, S. and Martin, D. K. (2005). An ethical framework for cardiac report cards: a qualitative study. BMC Medical Ethics, 6(3), doi:10.1186/1472-6939-6-3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×