To evaluate whether reporting of hospital performance was associated with a change in quality indicators in Italian hospitals.
Nationwide Hospital Information System for 2006-2009.
We performed a pre-post evaluation in Lazio (before and after disclosure of the Regional Outcome Evaluation Program P.Re.Val.E.) and a comparative evaluation versus Italian regions without comparable programs. We analyzed risk-adjusted proportions of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), hip fractures operated on within 48 hours, and cesarean deliveries.
Using standardized ICD-9-CM coding algorithms, we selected 381,053 acute myocardial infarction patients, 250,712 hip fractures, and 1,736,970 women who had given birth.
In Lazio PCI within 48 hours changed from 22.49 to 29.43 percent following reporting of the P.Re.Val.E results (relative increase, 31 percent; p < .001). In the other regions this proportion increased from 22.48 to 27.09 percent during the same time period (relative increase, 21 percent; p < .001). Hip fractures operated on within 48 hours increased from 11.73 to 15.78 percent (relative increase, 34 percent; p < .001) in Lazio, and not in other regions (29.36 to 28.57 percent). Cesarean deliveries did not decrease in Lazio (34.57-35.30 percent), and only slightly decreased in the other regions (30.49-28.11 percent).
Reporting of performance data may have a positive but limited impact on quality improvement. The evaluation of quality indicators remains paramount for public accountability.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: Recent US healthcare reforms aim to improve quality and access. We synthesized evidence assessing the impact that public reporting (PR), which will be extended to the outpatient setting, has on patient outcomes and disparities. METHODS: A systematic review using PRISMA guidelines identified studies addressing the impact of PR on patient outcomes and disparities. RESULTS: Of the 1970 publications identified, 25 were relevant, spanning hospitals (16), nursing homes (5), emergency rooms (1), health plans (2), and home health agencies (1). Evidence of effect on patient outcomes was mixed, with 6 studies reporting a favorable effect, 9 a mixed effect, 9 a null effect, and 1 a negative effect. One study found a mixed effect of PR on disparities. CONCLUSION: The evidence of the impact of PR on patient outcomes is lacking, with limited evidence that PR has a favorable effect on outcomes in nursing homes. There is little evidence supporting claims that PR will have an impact on disparities or in the outpatient setting. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Health systems should collect information on patient-relevant outcomes. The lack of evidence does not necessarily imply a lack of effect, and a research gap exists regarding patient-relevant outcomes and PR.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Public disclosure is increasingly a requirement of accrediting agencies and governments. There are few published empirical evaluations of disclosure interventions that inform evidence-based implementation or policy. This study investigated the practices associated with the public disclosure of healthcare accreditation information, in addition to multi-stakeholder perceptions of key challenges and opportunities for improvement. We conducted a mixed methods study comprising analysis of disclosure practices by accreditation agencies, and 47 semi-structured individual or group interviews involving 258 people. Participants were diverse stakeholders associated with Australian primary, acute and residential aged care accreditation programmes. Four interrelated issues were identified. First, there was broad agreement that accreditation information should be publicly disclosed, although the three accreditation agencies differed in the information they made public. Second, two implementation issues emerged: the need to educate the community about accreditation information, and the practical question of the detail to be provided. Third, the impact, both positive and negative, of disclosing accreditation information was raised. Fourth, the lack of knowledge about the impact on consumers was discussed. Public disclosure of accreditation information is an idea that has widespread support. However, translating the idea into practice, so as to produce appropriate, meaningful information, is a challenge.
Health Policy 09/2013; 113(1-2). DOI:10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.09.002 · 1.91 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background:
Outside the USA, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) prevention quality indicators (PQIs) have been used to compare the quality of primary care services only at a national or regional level. However, in several national health systems, primary care is not directly managed by the regions but is in charge of smaller territorial entities. We evaluated whether PQIs might be used to compare the performance of local providers such as Italian local health authorities (LHAs) and health districts.
We analysed the hospital discharge abstracts of 44 LHAs (and 11 health districts) of five Italian regions (including ≈18 million residents) in 2008-10. Age-standardized PQI rates were computed following AHRQ specifications. Potential predictors were investigated using multilevel modelling.
We analysed 11 470 722 hospitalizations. The overall rates of preventable hospitalizations (composite PQI 90) were 1012, 889 and 988 (×100 000 inhabitants) in 2008, 2009 and 2010, respectively. Composite PQIs were able to differentiate LHAs and health districts and showed small variation in the performance ranking over years.
Although further research is required, our findings support the use of composite PQIs to evaluate the performance of relatively small primary health care providers (50 000-60 000 enrollees) in countries with universal health care coverage. Achieving high precision may be crucial for a structured quality assessment system to align hospitalization rate indicators with measures of other contexts of care (cost, clinical management, satisfaction/experience) that are typically computed at a local level.
The European Journal of Public Health 12/2013; 24(5). DOI:10.1093/eurpub/ckt203 · 2.59 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.