Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Making Clinical Policy Explicit: Legislative Policy Making and Lessons for Developing Practice Guidelines

  • Jonathan Lomas (a1)

Abstract

Promulgation of practice guidelines in medicine has increased interest in the structure of clinical policy making. It is argued that with a generic efinition of policy as “the rules governing the behavior of individuals or institutions,” clinical policy making is analogous to legislative policy making. Practice guidelines emphasize the advantages of making clinical policy more explicit. The structure of legislative policy making as evolved over many years to meet the challenge of making both the policies and the process of policy making explicit. Processes to promulgate clinical policies may be able to exploit this experience to improve clinical policy making and thereby retain control of the process within medicine. Generic steps are outlined for making decisions with incomplete information; synthesis of facts, vested interests, and values; involvement of stakeholders; and implementation of policy. An illustration of the use of the generic steps to make and implement a clinical policy for cesarean birth follows, with evaluations of its impact on the behavior and satisfaction of clinical stakeholders.

Copyright

References

Hide All
1.Allison, G. T.Implementation analysis: The “missing chapter” in conventional analysis illustrated by a teaching exercise. In Lewin, L. & Vedung, E. (eds.), Politics as rational action: Essays in public choice and policy analysis. Boston: Reidel Publishing, 1980, 237–60.
2.American Medical Association. Directory of practice parameters. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, 1990.
3.Anderson, G. M., & Lomas, J.Determinants of the increasing cesarean birth rate: Ontario data 1979 to 1982. New England Journal of Medicine, 1984, 311, 887–92.
4.Anderson, G. M., & Lomas, J.Recent trends in cesarean section rates in Ontario. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1989, 141, 1049–53.
5.Avorn, J., & Soumerai, S.Improved drug therapy through educational outreach: A randomized controlled trial of academically based detailing. New England Journal of Medicine, 1983, 308, 1457–63.
6.Avorn, J., Chen, M., & Hartley, R.Scientific vs. commercial sources of influence on the prescribing behavior of physicians. American Journal of Medicine, 1982, 73, 48.
7.Bardach, E.The implementation game: What happens after a bill becomes a law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1977.
8.Barnsley, J. M., Vayda, E., Lomas, J., et al. Cesarean section in Ontario: Practice patterns and responses to hypothetical cases. Canadian Journal of Surgery, 1990, 33, 128–32.
9.Boulding, K. E.The boundaries of social policy. Social Work, 1967, 12, 311.
10.Cragin, E. B.Conservatism in obstetrics. New York State Journal of Medicine, 1916,104,13.
11.Doern, G. B., & Phidd, R. W.Canadian public policy. Ideas, structure, process. Toronto: Methuen, 1983.
12.Dror, Y.Public policy making reexamined. San Francisco, CA: Chandler, 1968.
13.Eddy, D. M.Clinical policies and quality of clinical practice. New England Journal of Medicine, 1982, 307, 343–47.
14.Eddy, D. M.Guidelines for policy statements: The explicit approach. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1990, 263, 2239–43.
15.Eisenberg, J. M.Doctors’ decisions and the cost of medical care: The reasons for doctors’ practice patterns and ways to change them. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press, 1986.
16.Etzioni, A.The active society: A theory of society and political processes. New York: Free Press, 1968.
17.Field, M. J., & Lohr, K. N. (eds.). Clinical practice guidelines: Directions for a new program. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990.
18.Goodman, C. (ed.). Medical technology assessment directory: A pilot reference to organizations, assessments, and information sources. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1988.
19.Greer, A. L.The state of the art vs. the state of the science: The diffusion of new medical technologies into practice. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1988, 4, 526.
20.Hammons, T.The use and contribution of practice guidelines. Background paper prepared for the conference to develop the research agenda for outcomes and effectiveness research, Washington, DC, 04, 1991.
21.Hampton, J. R.The end of clinical freedom. British Medical Journal, 1983, 287, 1237–39.
22.Haynes, R. B., Davis, D. A., McKibbon, K. A., & Tugwell, P.A critical appraisal of the efficacy of continuing medical education. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1984, 251, 6164.
23.Jacoby, I.The consensus development program of the National Institutes of Health. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1985, 1, 420–32.
24.Kanouse, D. E. (ed.). Changing medical practice through technology assessment. An evaluation of the N.I.H. consensus development program. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press, 1989.
25.Leape, L. L.Unnecessary surgery. Health Services Research, 1989, 24, 351407.
26.Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R.The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press, 1988.
27.Lindblom, C. E. The science of “muddling through.” Public Administration Review, 1959, 19, 7999.
28.Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G.Policy formulation and the challenge of conscious design. Evaluation and Program Planning, 1990, 13, 303–11.
29.Lomas, J.The consensus process and evidence dissemination. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1986, 134, 1340–41.
30.Lomas, J.Holding back the tide of cesareans: Publishing recommendations is not enough to stop the rise. British Medical Journal, 1988, 297, 569–70.
31.Lomas, J.Words without action? The production, dissemination and impact of consensus recommendations. Annual Review of Public Health, 1991, 12, 4165.
32.Lomas, J., & Anderson, G. M.Explaining variations in cesarean section rates: Patients, facilities, or policies? Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1985, 132, 253–59.
33.Lomas, J., Anderson, G. M., Domnick-Pierre, K., et al. Do practice guidelines guide practice? The effect of a consensus statement on the practice of physicians. New England Journal of Medicine, 1989, 321, 1306–11.
34.Lomas, J., Anderson, G. M., Enkin, M., et al. The role of evidence in the consensus process: Results from a Canadian consensus exercise. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1988, 259, 3001–05.
35.Lomas, J., Enkin, M., Anderson, G. M., et al. Opinion leaders vs. audit and feedback to implement practice guidelines. Delivery after previous cesarean section. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1991, 265, 2202–07.
36.Lomas, J., & Haynes, R. B.A taxonomy and critical review of tested strategies for the appli cation of clinical practice recommendations: From ‘official’ to ‘individual’ clinical policy. American Journal of Preventive Me Heine, 1988, 4(suppl.), 7794.
37.Majchrzak, A.Methods for policy research. London: Sage Publications, 1984.
38.May, J. B., & Wildavsky, A. B. (eds.). The policy cycle. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1978.
39.Morone, J. A.The democratic wish. Popular participation and the limits of American government. New York: Basic Books, 1990.
40.Munnell, A. H. (ed.). Lessons from the income maintenance experiments. Proceedings of a conference held at Melvin Village, New Hampshire, September 1986. Boston, MA: Federal Reserve Bank and the Brookings Institution, 1987.
41.Naylor, C. D., Basinski, A., Frank, J. W., & Rachlis, M. M.Asymptomatic hypercholesterolemia: A clinical policy review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1990, 43,1021–22.
42.Notzon, F. C., Placek, P. J., & Taffel, S. M.Comparisons of national cesarean-section rates. New England Journal of Medicine, 1987, 316, 386–89.
43.Ontario. Appropriate use of cesarean section: Recommendations for a quality assurance program. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health, 1991.
44.Panel of the National Consensus Conference on Aspects of Cesarean Birth. Indications for cesarean section: Final statement of the panel of the National Consensus Conference on Aspects of Cesarean Birth. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1986,134,12841352.
45.Phelan, J. P., & Clark, S. L. (eds.). Cesarean delivery. New York: Elsevier, 1988.
46.Pierre, K. D., Vayda, E., Lomas, J., et al. Obstetrical attitudes and practices before and after the Canadian consensus conference statement on cesarean birth. Social Science and Medicine, 1991, 32, 1283–89.
47.Sabatier, P. A.An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 1988, 21, 129–68.
48.Sackett, D. L.Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents. Chest, 1986, 89(suppl.), 2S–3S.
49.Schroeder, S. A.Strategies for reducing medical costs by changing physicians’ behavior: Efficacy and impact on quality of care. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1987, 3, 3950.
50.Soumerai, S. B., & Avorn, J.Principles of educational outreach ('academic detailing') to improve clinical decision making. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1990, 263, 549–56.
51.Stone, D.Policy paradox and political reason. Boston, MA: Scott Foresman/Little Brown, 1988.
52.Stross, J. K., & Bole, G. G.Continuing education and rheumatoid arthritis for the primary care physician. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 1979, 22, 7791.
53.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. AHCPR program note. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Washington, DC: The U.S. Government Printing Office, 0–861–842, 1990.
54.Wennberg, J. E.Dealing with medical practice variations: A proposal for action. Health Affairs, 1984, 3, 632.
55.Wennberg, J. E.Outcomes research, cost containment, and the fear of health care rationing. New England Journal of Medicine, 1990, 323, 1202–04.
56.Williamson, J. W., German, P. S., Weiss, R., et al. Health science information management and continuing education of physicians. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1989, 110, 151–60.

Making Clinical Policy Explicit: Legislative Policy Making and Lessons for Developing Practice Guidelines

  • Jonathan Lomas (a1)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed