1991/05/01 by N. J. Price, R. E. Pugh, Robert Pugh +4 · 2 citations
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology · Medicine · #Congenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies #Dermatology #Medicine #Ocular Disorders and Treatments #Reconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
paper · pdf · doi:10.1136/bjo.75.5.317
openalex publication_date 1991/05/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/30
The past 20 years have seen two great changes in the practice of medicine: the widespread adoption of evidence-based medicine, and the increasing challenge of managing complex multimorbid patients. Both these developments have resulted in clinical rules and protocols becoming ever more abundant and increasingly critical to delivering safe and effective patient care. These evidence-based clinical rules perform at least as well as expert opinion, and the increasing volume and quality of available clinical data suggests their performance could continue to improve. This article considers why clinicians deviate from effective rules, highlighting key issues such as the persisting culture of heroism, institutional inertia, deference to authority and personal heuristics. We argue that better rules can be created, and that clinical improvements will follow if there is a ‘common knowledge’ of these rules. Furthermore, we argue that there is a ceiling to the effectiveness of any rule, even one as simple as ensuring hand hygiene, unless individuals are held accountable for transgressions.