The paradox of the parts and the whole in understanding and improving general practice
Generate an AI Snapshot to get a quick, structured summary of this paper.
A concise AI-generated summary of the paper will appear here once you click Generate AI Snapshot.
TL;DR
The book reviewed in this issue of the Journal epitomizes the state of the art of quality measurement in general practice and provides a guide to developing indicators of the quality of general practice.
Abstract
The book reviewed in this issue of the Journal [1] epitomizes the state of the art of quality measurement in general practice. Currently available quality indicators are based on a mix of scientific evidence and expert opinion. Indicators assess processes of care that have been found to be associated with markers of patient outcomes. Quality of care measures and clinical indicators are typically criticized for the limitations of the scientific evidence on which they are based and for their strong reliance on what can be measured [2–4]. However, an even more fundamental issue is important to developing indicators of the quality of general practice. This larger issue is the problem of the parts and the whole—that is, indicators of the quality of care for specific diseases may not adequately represent the quality of care for the whole …
