Article

Use of public performance reports: a survey of patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 30.39). 06/1998; 279(20):1638-42.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Publicly released performance reports ("report cards") are expected to foster competition on the basis of quality. Proponents frequently cite the need to inform patient choice of physicians and hospitals as a central element of this strategy.
To examine the awareness and use of a statewide consumer guide that provides risk-adjusted, in-hospital mortality ratings of hospitals that provide cardiac surgery.
Telephone survey conducted in 1996.
Pennsylvania, where since 1992, the Pennsylvania Consumer Guide to Coronary Artery Bypass Graft [CABG] Surgery has provided risk-adjusted mortality ratings of all cardiac surgeons and hospitals in the state.
A total of 474 (70%) of 673 eligible patients who had undergone CABG surgery during the previous year at 1 of 4 hospitals listed in the Consumer Guide as having average mortality rates between 1% and 5% were successfully contacted.
Patients' awareness of the Consumer Guide, their knowledge of its ratings, their degree of interest in the report, and barriers to its use.
Ninety-three patients (20%) were aware of the Consumer Guide, but only 56 (12%) knew about it before surgery. Among these 56 patients, 18 reported knowing the hospital rating and 7 reported knowing the surgeon rating, 11 said hospital and/or surgeon ratings had a moderate or major impact on their decision making, but only 4 were able to specify either or both correctly. When the Consumer Guide was described to all patients, 264 (56%) were "very" or "somewhat" interested in seeing a copy, and 273 (58%) reported that they probably or definitely would change surgeons if they learned that their surgeon had a higher than expected mortality rate in the previous year. A short time window for decision making and a limited awareness of alternative hospitals within a reasonable distance of home were identified as important barriers to use.
Only 12% of patients surveyed reported awareness of a prominent report on cardiac surgery mortality before undergoing cardiac surgery. Fewer than 1% knew the correct rating of their surgeon or hospital and reported that it had a moderate or major impact on their selection of provider. Efforts to aid patient decision making with performance reports are unlikely to succeed without a tailored and intensive program for dissemination and patient education.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
71 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Government-mandated publication of named surgeon-specific outcome data (SSD) has recently been introduced across nine surgical specialty areas in England. This move is the first time that such national data has been released in any country, and it promises to provide a significant advancement in health service transparency. Data is derived from nine preexisting national surgical audit databases. However, eight of these were not originally designed for this purpose, and there is considerable controversy surrounding data quality, risk adjustment, patient use and interpretation, and surgeons' subsequent case selection. Concerns also surround the degree to which these results truly reflect the individual consultant, or the wider hospital team and accompanying resources. The potential impact on surgical training has largely been overlooked. This paper investigated the background to SSD publication and controversies surrounding this, the potential impact on surgical training and the response to these concerns from medical and surgical leaders. As SSD collection continues to be refined, the most appropriate outcomes measurements need to be established, and risk adjustment requires ongoing improvement and validation. Prospective evaluation of changes in surgical training should be undertaken, as any degradation of will have both short and long-term consequences for patients and surgeons alike. It is important that the literature supporting the safety of supervised trainee practice is also promoted in order to counterbalance any potential concerns that might detract from trainee operating opportunities. Finally, it is important that outcomes data is communicated to patients in the most meaningful way in order to facilitate their understanding and interpretation given the complexities of the data and analysis involved. Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
    International Journal of Surgery (London, England) 12/2014; · 1.44 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There seems no good reason for doctors to work in secret. Individual users of healthcare and the community in general, which ultimately bears the cost, are perfectly entitled to know how their health services and health providers are performing. The promulgation of surgical report cards has been hailed by some as a liberating step in the right direction. This paper seeks to analyse, from a clinician’s perspective, the evolution and limitations of report cards. Ultimately, the importance of report cards will not be their immediate utility, which is minimal, but as a first step in a much wider and far more important debate about how we meaningfully measure the quality of health services and providers (including managers and bureaucrats), the likely cost of such an enterprise, how much we are willing and able to pay and how we reconcile the competing needs of information versus clinical and preventive care when all are competing for the same and inadequate pool of resources.
    Monash bioethics review 09/2014; 28(3):1-20.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To describe patients' perceived value and use of quality measures in evaluating and choosing community pharmacies. Focus group methodology was combined with a survey tool. During the focus groups, participants assessed the value of the Pharmacy Quality Alliance's quality measures in evaluating and choosing a pharmacy. Also, participants completed questionnaires rating their perceived value of quality measures in evaluating a pharmacy (1 being low value and 5 being high) or choosing a pharmacy (yes/no). Thematic analysis and descriptive statistics were used to analyse the focus groups and surveys, respectively. Semistructured focus groups were conducted in a private meeting space of an urban and a rural area of a Mid-western State in the USA. Thirty-four adults who filled prescription medications in community pharmacies for a chronic illness were recruited in community pharmacies, senior centres and public libraries. While comments indicated that all measures were important, medication safety measures (eg, drug-drug interactions) were valued more highly than others. Rating of quality measure utility in evaluating a pharmacy ranged from a mean of 4.88 ('drug-drug interactions') to a mean of 4.0 ('absence of controller therapy for patients with asthma'). Patients were hesitant to use quality information in choosing a pharmacy (depending on the participant's location) but might consider if moving to a new area or having had a negative pharmacy experience. Use of select quality measures to choose a pharmacy ranged from 97.1% of participants using 'drug-drug interactions' (medication safety measure) to 55.9% using 'absence of controller therapy for patients with asthma'. The study participants valued quality measures in evaluating and selecting a community pharmacy, with medication safety measures valued highest. The participants reported that the quality measures would not typically cause a switch in pharmacy but might influence their selection in certain situations. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
    BMJ Open 01/2015; 5(1):e006086. · 2.06 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
0 Downloads
Available from