Quality assurance and technology assessment: pieces of a larger puzzle.
Increasing integration of health care and health services research has resulted in an overlap between disciplines involved in the evaluation of clinical practice. We have examined the relationships of quality assurance (QA), medical technology assessment (TA), clinical epidemiology (CE) and evidence-based medicine (EBM) from an historical perspective. Clinicians, patients and administrators need local information on effectiveness of routine care. Information from trials alone, efficacy data, will not suffice nor can it be culled from administrative databases designed for other purposes. The current activities of QA should be therefore be expanded to include the study of the effectiveness of interventions in terms of appropriateness of use, patient outcomes and study of the determinants of outcomes, as seen from the perspective of doctors, patients, administrators and policy makers, using data collected during the course of routine patient care. With the assistance of information technology, with methodological support and multidisciplinary cooperation, clinicians can do this as part of a more broadly defined clinical research. Quality assurance and TA both evolved with the objective of studying clinical care but have quite different historical roots, complementary perspectives and objectives, use different methods and involve a different set of practitioners. Quality assurance is a type of 'formative' evaluation conducted in the clinical setting using indicators as flags of process or outcome events of interest, simple surveys and audit studies. Its primary aim is to achieve incremental improvement rather than to simply pass judgement. An important underlying assumption is that health care behaves as a complex dynamic system. Technology assessment, a form of summative evaluation with an orientation towards policy, synthesises information from formal scientific studies of efficacy in the form of clinical trials and studies of cost-effectiveness. For the evaluation of the impact of any technology more complex than a drug, the complementary contributions of both of these disciplines is needed, and QA and TA should work cooperatively in tandem with the support of CE and EBM.
McDonald
I G
IG
Centre for the Study of Clinical Practice, St Vincents Hospital Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. mcdonai@svhm.org.au
D015510:Clinical Medicine; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D019033:Delivery of Health Care, Integrated; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D006801:Humans; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care / Q000379:methods*; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care / Q000379:methods; D011787:Quality of Health Care; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D012106:Research; D013673:Technology Assessment, Biomedical / Q000379:methods