questions you address? Does it sufficiently cover services and populations of interest? What are the critical gaps (if any)?
Do you incorporate observational and other nonrandomized data in your evidence syntheses? If yes, what are the parameters for their use?
How do you respond to pressing demands for clinical recommendations when the body of evidence is insufficient or when the available evidence is relevant to only a subset of patients? Approximately how often do you make recommendations in the absence of sufficient data in these cases?
What resources does your organization dedicate to developing evidence-based clinical recommendations (e.g., staff time, special committee responsibility, conferences)?
INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE WORKSHOP
REVIEWING EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY HIGHLY EFFECTIVE CLINICAL SERVICES
JANUARY 25, 2007
PANEL 2—USING SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS TO DEVELOP QUALITY MEASURES AND PRACTICE STANDARDS
Moderator: Lisa Simpson (Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center)
Panelists: Janet Corrigan (NQF), Greg Pawlson (NCQA), Dennis O’Leary (JCAHO), Cary Sennett (AMA-convened Physician Consortium)
The objective of this panel discussion is to learn about the experiences of leading organizations that are at the forefront of U.S. efforts to develop, implement, and improve evidence-based clinical practice standards. The mission of the NQF is to promote quality improvement in healthcare by endorsing national performance measures. NCQA’s HEDIS measures are used to assess health plan performance on various dimensions of care. JCAHO’s ORYX initiative incorporates outcome performance measurement into the accreditation process for health care organizations. The AMA-convened Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement®(Consortium) has developed more than 100 performance measures for practicing physicians. The Consortium includes more than 100 medical specialty and state medical societies, the Council of Medical Specialty Societies, American Board of Medical Specialties and its member-boards, experts in methodology and