Physician attitudes, self-estimated performance and actual compliance with locally peer-defined quality evaluation criteria

Abstract

Background. Physicians' agreement with quality evaluation criteria, and estimates of their own and their colleagues' compliance with these criteria were compared with actual compliance. Methods. Physicians practicing in 10 health centers in Spain defined 13 quality evaluation criteria for two patient conditions (upper respiratory infections and high serum cholesterol). Compliance with criteria was measured by an external team, using random samples of medical records stratified by condition in each health center (n= 1000). Concurrently, physicians were surveyed regarding agreement with the criteria, and were asked to estimate their own and their health center's rate of compliance with these criteria. Results. Agreement ratings varied from 5.9 to 9.1 on a 10-point scale. Actual compliance rates ranged from 1.8 to 91.7% of records. Agreement correlated significantly with self-reported compliance but not with actual compliance. Estimates of one's own and one's health center compliance were positive and significantly correlated for all criteria, but were significantly higher for oneself than for one's health center for six of 13 criteria. Conclusions. Wide variation in physicians' agreement on quality criteria and in actual performance reveal a lack of clear guidelines. Agreement on criteria did not always translate into compliance with criteria. Physicians tended to rate their own performance as better than the average of their peers, suggesting that aggregate data may not influence physicians to change. Self-estimate of one's own or one's colleagues performance is not a good proxy for actual performance so that peer ratings are of dubious value for performance appraisal.