Practice Guidelines and Practicing Medicine

Are They Compatible?

Published in: Journal of the American Medical Association, v. 262, No. 21, 1989, p. 3027-3030

Posted on on January 01, 1989

by Robert H. Brook

Read More

Access further information on this document at

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

In this time of ever-increasing financial pressure on medical facilities and physicians, the economic value and appropriateness of nearly every aspect of clinical practice is under scrutiny. Physicians make many daily decisions regarding patient treatment that are derived from knowledge of the patient and the probable value of a test or treatment. But does the average physician really understand the cost-benefit advantage of one test or procedure over another for a particular patient? What is the trade-off between the experience of one physician who selects a treatment for a unique patient and a medical guideline for the treatment of a similar, but idealized patient culled from the experience of a group of physicians? Experience seems to be pushing medicine into the direction of medical guidelines as the standard of treatment decisions. Such guidelines would be oriented towards medical outcomes and, once adopted, the methods outlined would become the norm against which practice would be assessed. While improving outcome, rigid adherence to medical guidelines can lead to excessive costs. The development of medical standards must also be tied to elaborate data collection and analysis procedures that will insure that their value is maintained and kept current with new research and the introduction of new procedures. The collection of such data could lead to: a means for self-evaluation by individual physicians, providing consumer/patient information, revitalizing medical textbooks and increasing the importance of information science in medical school. This trend could allow licensing boards to evaluate performance when recertifying physicians. In addition, insurance companies could base their decisions of preferred provider designations on how well individuals or institutions meet acceptable standards. A patient and physician could be more effective in assessing the patient's medical condition together. The legal system could use the standards to develop more appropriate definitions of malpractice and, as a result, malpractice claims and costs could be reduced.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.