It's NOT FAIR! Or is it? The promise and the tyranny of evidence-based performance assessment

How general practitioners decide on maxims of action in response to demands from conflicting sets of norms: a grounded theory study

BACKGROUND

The work of general practitioners (GPs) is infused by norms from several movements, of which evidence based medicine, patient-centredness, and virtue ethics are some of the most influential. Their precepts are not clearly reconcilable, and structural factors may limit their application. In this paper, we develop a conceptual framework that explains how GPs respond, across different fields of interaction in their daily work, to the pressure exerted by divergent norms.

METHODS

Data was generated from unstructured interviews with and observations of sixteen Swedish GPs (who have by definition more than five years of experience after license to practice) and family medicine residents (with less than five years of experience) between 2015 and 2017. Straussian Grounded Theory was used for analysis.

RESULTS

We found that GPs' maxims of action can be characterised in terms of dichotomous responses to demands from four distinct sets of norms, or "voices": the situation, the self, the system, and the profession. From the interactions between these voices emerge sixteen clusters of maxims of action. Based on the common features of the maxims in each cluster, we have developed a conceptual framework that appears to be rich enough to capture the meaning of the ethical decisions that GPs make in their daily work, yet has a high enough level of abstraction to be helpful when discussing the factors that influence those decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Our four-dimensional model of GPs' responses to norms is a first step toward a middle-range theory of quality from GPs' perspective. It brings out the complexity of their practice, reveals tensions that easily remain invisible in more concrete accounts of their actions, and aids the transferability of substantive theories on GPs' ethical decision making. By explaining the nature of the ethical conflicts that they experience, we provide some clues as to why efforts to improve quality by imposing additional norms on GPs may meet with varying degrees of success.

Building on evidence to improve patient care

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is gaining importance in the current paediatric healthcare landscape. Improvement of paediatric health status is its major aim. However, for EBM to be successful, all stakeholders involved should understand what EBM really is, why and how EBM should or should not be practiced, and have the necessary skills to distinguish methodologically sound papers from biased opinion papers, and understand how and why guidelines are different from systematic reviews. Improving patient outcome requires attention to high-quality evidence and understanding of the processes of medical decision-making. Rigorous methodology is the cornerstone of guideline production, but in cases where quality evidence cannot be produced, as is often the case in paediatric nephrology because of low patient numbers, consensus-based guidance may be suitable to assist the practitioner at the bedside, as long as the underlying process is transparent. Most importantly, EBM should support patient involvement in a shared decision-making process. The more consistent and accurately predictable the effect of certain interventions is, clinically relevant to patients rather than affecting surrogate outcomes, and a priority for patients and other stakeholders, the more likely it is that adherence to the guidance provided will improve the outcome of patients.