Article Text
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Introduction
Quality measurement that focuses on important processes and outcomes within healthcare is typically seen as an essential feature of well-functioning healthcare systems.1 While outcome measures are concerned with assessing the impact of healthcare interventions (eg, the number of adverse drug events or the average length of stay for inpatients), process measures focus instead on assessing whether elements or steps within healthcare systems are happening as planned (eg, the number of patients seen in a clinic or the proportion of patients receiving a particular intervention). The relationship between processes and outcomes is acknowledged to be complex.2
Many population-based screening programmes, both in the UK and internationally, have as a key performance indicator (KPI) some sort of measure that assesses how many of the population eligible for that screening intervention participate in it (typically referred to as either ‘uptake’ or ‘coverage’). For example, for the adult (non-pregnancy) screening programmes offered by the NHS in the UK, all five programmes include a KPI of this kind, with acceptable (ie, minimum) thresholds made explicit.3
But is this simple process measure of the uptake of screening programmes a good assessment of healthcare quality? In this viewpoint paper, we highlight some of the shortcomings in using uptake to measure quality in this context and offer some possible ways forward.
The tension between uptake and informed choice
Many of the shortcomings of uptake as a quality metric that we will discuss have at their root the tension between measuring uptake of screening on the one hand and on the other a commitment to screening participation based on informed choice. Informed choice for screening is not a particularly new idea; back in the late 1990s in the UK, for example, arguments were being made both about the importance of informed choice in this clinical context and the challenges of achieving this.4 …
Footnotes
X @drnatarmstrong
Contributors NA conceptualised the paper and led the writing of the first draft. ST-P reviewed the draft and contributed substantially to revising it. NA acts as guarantor.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests Both authors are current members of the UK National Screening Committee.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer-reviewed.