Success, failures and costs of implementing standards in the USA--lessons for infection control

In the US, extensive standards for performance and 'guidelines for practice' have been instituted by a number of governmental and non-governmental agencies. New governmental plans for health care depend heavily on practice guidelines, and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) has been especially enthusiastic about continuous quality improvement. Monitoring the appropriateness of care and altering physician practice appeals to insurance carriers and health care management organizations. Some initial data exist to show that the quality of health care has been enhanced by these regulations. The total cost for health care administration in 1990 in the USA was 24.8% of each hospital's spending for health care. Much of this was associated with spending for new initiatives in practice guidelines, physician profiling, quality assurance, and the like. Few data exist to show that the quality of health care or hospital infection control has been enhanced by these expenditures. Regulations and guidelines also have proliferated in infection control. Guides from the JCAHO have been expanded, and recent mandates from the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) for protecting employees from blood-borne and respiratory pathogens promise to be especially costly for health care organizations to implement. Little data exist to show that the quality of infection control has been enhanced by these regulations. Standards are difficult to develop, because the science to back them up often is lacking, interpretation of validating data is imprecise, and inherent biological variation makes exceptions common. Seven lessons are important for those developing standards today. These include focusing on objective measures of the impact of the standard, clearly indicating the degree of scientific validity, making the development process inclusive, allowing for local variation, making sure that funding is provided for mandated standards, considering non-scientific implications of standards, and remaining involved in the process after the guideline is developed. Infection control workers should make sure that standards developed take the lessons above into account before they are promulgated.