Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Essay
  • Published:

The Kubler-Ross model, physician distress, and performance reporting

Nature Reviews Urology volume 10, pages 425–428 (2013)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Physician performance reporting has been proposed as an essential component of health-care reform, with the aim of improving quality by providing transparency and accountability. Despite strong evidence demonstrating regional variation in practice patterns and lack of evidence-based care, public outcomes reporting has been met with resistance from medical professionals. Application of the Kubler-Ross 'five stages of grief' model—a conceptual framework consisting of a series of emotional stages (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance) inspired by work with terminally ill patients—could provide some insight into why physicians are reluctant to accept emerging quality-reporting mechanisms. Physician-led quality-improvement initiatives are vital to contemporary health-care reform efforts and applications in urology, as well as other medical disciplines, are currently being explored.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Emanuel, E. J. & Pearson, S. D. Physician autonomy and health care reform. JAMA 307, 367–368 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Webster, P. C. Comparative effectiveness research stalls in the USA. Lancet 375, 361–362 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kohn, L. T., Corrigan, J. M. & Donaldson, M. S. To err is human: building a safer health system (National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Schmaltz, S. P., Williams, S. C., Chassin, M. R., Loeb, J. M. & Wachter, R. M. Hospital performance trends on national quality measures and the association with Joint Commission accreditation. J. Hosp. Med. 6, 454–461 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Marshall, M. N., Shekelle, P. G., Brook, R. H. & Leatherman, S. Use of performance data to change physician behavior. JAMA 284, 1079 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Carlsen, B., Glenton, C. & Pope, C. Thou shalt versus thou shalt not: a meta-synthesis of GPs' attitudes to clinical practice guidelines. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 57, 971–978 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dranove, D., Kessler, D., McClellan, M. & Satterthwaite, M. Is more information better? The effects of “report cards” on health care providers. J. Polit. Econ. 111, 555–588 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Obama, B. Securing the future of American health care. N. Engl. J. Med. 367, 1377–1381 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Devi, S. Doctors in distress. Lancet 377, 454–455 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Thomson-Reuters. The 2011 National Physicians Survey: frustration and dismay in a time of change [online], (2011).

  11. Kubler-Ross, E. On Death and Dying, (Macmillan Publishing, New York, 1969).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Daugird, A. & Spencer, D. Physician reactions to the health care revolution. A grief model approach. Arch. Fam. Med. 5, 497–501 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Grover, F. L. et al. A decade's experience with quality improvement in cardiac surgery using the Veterans Affairs and Society of Thoracic Surgeons national databases. Ann. Surg. 234, 464–472 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Khuri, S. F. et al. The Department of Veterans Affairs' NSQIP: the first national, validated, outcome-based, risk-adjusted, and peer-controlled program for the measurement and enhancement of the quality of surgical care. National VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Ann. Surg. 228, 491–507 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Brown, D. L., Clarke, S. & Oakley, J. Cardiac surgeon report cards, referral for cardiac surgery, and the ethical responsibilities of cardiologists. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 59, 2378–2382 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain & Ireland. Heart Surgery in the United Kingdom [online].

  17. Burger, I., Schill, K. & Goodman, S. Disclosure of individual surgeon's performance rates during informed consent: ethical and epistemological considerations. Ann. Surg. 245, 507–513 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Schneider, E. C. & Epstein, A. M. Use of public performance reports: a survey of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. JAMA 279, 1638–1642 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Birkmeyer, J. D. et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N. Engl. J. Med. 346, 1128–1137 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Birkmeyer, J. D. & Dimick, J. B. Potential benefits of the new Leapfrog standards: effect of process and outcomes measures. Surgery 135, 569–575 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guideline on Cancer Services: Improving Outcomes in Urological Cancers [online], (2002).

  22. Birkmeyer, J. D. et al. Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N. Engl. J. Med. 349, 2117–2127 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Birkmeyer, J. D. Strategies for improving surgical quality--checklists and beyond. N. Engl. J. Med. 363, 1963–1965 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Steinbrook, R. Public report cards--cardiac surgery and beyond. N. Engl. J. Med. 355, 1847–1849 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Werner, R. M., Asch, D. A. & Polsky, D. Racial profiling: the unintended consequences of coronary artery bypass graft report cards. Circulation 111, 1257–1263 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Werner, R. M. & Asch, D. A. The unintended consequences of publicly reporting quality information. JAMA 293, 1239–1244 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Ryan, A. M., Nallamothu, B. K. & Dimick, J. B. Medicare's public reporting initiative on hospital quality had modest or no impact on mortality from three key conditions. Health Aff. (Millwood) 31, 585–592 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ketelaar, N. A. et al. Public release of performance data in changing the behaviour of healthcare consumers, professionals or organisations. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 11. Art. No.: CD004538. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004538.pub2.

  29. Medicare. Hospital compare [online], (2013).

  30. Krumholz, H. M. et al. An administrative claims model suitable for profiling hospital performance based on 30-day mortality rates among patients with an acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 113, 1683–1692 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kocher, R. P. & Adashi, E. Y. Hospital readmissions and the Affordable Care Act: paying for coordinated quality care. JAMA 306, 1794–1795 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Hall, M. C. et al. Guideline for the management of nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer (stages Ta, T1, and Tis): 2007 update. J. Urol. 178, 2314–2330 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Forrest, J. B. et al. AUA Best Practice Statement for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in patients undergoing urologic surgery. J. Urol. 181, 1170–1177 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. American Urological Association. Clinical Guidance [online], (2013).

  35. Corcoran, A. T., Smaldone, M. C., Kutikov, A. & Uzzo, R. G. Addressing the evidence gap—randomized controlled trials for the surgical management of localized genitourinary malignancies. Urol. Oncol. (in press).

  36. Gilbert, S. M. & Penson, D. Outcomes research in urology. World J. Urol. 29, 1–2 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Miller, D. C. et al. Regional collaboration to improve radiographic staging practices among men with early stage prostate cancer. J. Urol. 186, 844–849 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. MUSIC: Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative [online], (2013).

  39. Share, D. A. et al. How a regional collaborative of hospitals and physicians in Michigan cut costs and improved the quality of care. Health Aff. (Millwood) 30, 636–645 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. McDonough, J. E. The road ahead for the Affordable Care Act. N. Engl. J. Med. 367, 199–201 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Medicare. Quality Initiatives—General Information [online], (2013).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Surgery, Fox Chase Cancer Center-Temple University Health System, 333 Cottman Avenue, Pennsylvania, 19111, PA, USA

    Marc C. Smaldone & Robert G. Uzzo

Authors
  1. Marc C. Smaldone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert G. Uzzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M. C. Smaldone researched data for the article, made a substantial contribution to discussion of content, wrote and reviewed/edited the manuscript before submission. R. G. Uzzo made a substantial contribution to discussion of content, and reviewed/edited the manuscript before submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc C. Smaldone.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Smaldone, M., Uzzo, R. The Kubler-Ross model, physician distress, and performance reporting. Nat Rev Urol 10, 425–428 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2013.76

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2013.76

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing