Why use clinical pathways rather than practice guidelines?
BACKGROUND
Financial pressures from managed care organizations, the government, and other "stakeholders" have resulted in the production of practice guidelines and clinical pathways. Clinical pathways involve all segments of a health care system and may prove to be more beneficial and less hazardous to patients and health care providers.


METHODS
A historical narrative describing the development of clinical pathways by the Southwestern Surgical Congress (SWSC) and the Southeastern Surgical Congress (SESC) is made. The motivations, the benefits, and the hazards of both clinical pathways and practice guidelines are discussed.


RESULTS
Clinical pathways have proven to reduce length of stay (LOS), complications, and cost, and provide increased patient satisfaction whereas practice guidelines from some specialties show improved quality of care when compared with nonspecialists. However, many practice guidelines are developed by specialists on "best practice" standards, and few have documented studies proving their effectiveness.


CONCLUSIONS
Eleven clinical pathways were developed by the SWSC and the SESC and are in the process of revision and study for efficacy. They will be disseminated in the American Surgeon and on the SWSC web site for review and comment. In 1998, both congresses hope to publish the efficacy of selected pathways by describing their effect on LOS and charge for those diagnostic-related groups.
Weiland
D E
DE
Maricopa Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
D019091:Critical Pathways; D013502:General Surgery / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D007902:Length of Stay; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic