Impact of public reporting on quality of postacute care.

Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VAMC, the Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, PA, USA.
Health Services Research (Impact Factor: 2.49). 04/2009; 44(4):1169-87. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.00967.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Evidence supporting the use of public reporting of quality information to improve health care quality is mixed. While public reporting may improve reported quality, its effect on quality of care more broadly is uncertain. This study tests whether public reporting in the setting of nursing homes resulted in improvement of reported and broader but unreported quality of postacute care.
1999-2005 nursing home Minimum Data Set and inpatient Medicare claims.
We examined changes in postacute care quality in U.S. nursing homes in response to the initiation of public reporting on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website, Nursing Home Compare. We used small nursing homes that were not subject to public reporting as a contemporaneous control and also controlled for patient selection into nursing homes. Postacute care quality was measured using three publicly reported clinical quality measures and 30-day potentially preventable rehospitalization rates, an unreported measure of quality.
Reported quality of postacute care improved after the initiation of public reporting for two of the three reported quality measures used in Nursing Home Compare. However, rates of potentially preventable rehospitalization did not significantly improve and, in some cases, worsened.
Public reporting of nursing home quality was associated with an improvement in most postacute care performance measures but not in the broader measure of rehospitalization.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: /st>To evaluate whether public reporting of performance data was associated with a change over time in quality indicators for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in Italian hospitals. /st>Pre-post evaluation of AMI indicators in the Lazio region, before and after disclosure of the Regional Outcome Evaluation Program, and a comparative evaluation versus other Italian regions not participating in the program. /st>Nationwide Hospital Information System and vital status records. /st>24 800 patients treated for AMI in Lazio and 39 350 in the other regions. /st>Public reporting of the Regional Outcome Evaluation Program in the Lazio region. /st>Risk-adjusted indicators for AMI. /st>The proportion of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients treated with percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) within 48 h in Lazio changed from 31.3 to 48.7%, before and after public reporting, respectively (relative increase 56%; P < 0.001). In the other regions, the proportion increased from 51.5 to 58.4% (relative increase 13%; P < 0.001). Overall 30-day mortality and 30-day mortality for patients treated with PCI did not improve during the study period. The 30-day mortality for STEMI patients not treated with PCI in Lazio was significantly higher in 2009 (29.0%) versus 2006/07 (24.0%) (P = .002). /st>Public reporting may have contributed to increasing the proportion of STEMI patients treated with timely PCI. The mortality outcomes should be interpreted with caution. Changes in AMI diagnostic and coding systems should also be considered. Risk-adjusted quality indicators represent a fundamental instrument for monitoring and potentially enhancing quality of care.
    International Journal for Quality in Health Care 04/2014; · 1.79 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Providing equitable and patient-centered care is critical to ensuring high quality of care. Although racial/ethnic disparities in quality are widely reported for nursing facilities, it is unknown whether disparities exist in consumer experiences with care and how public reporting of consumer experiences affects facility performance and potential racial disparities.
    Medical Care 07/2014; 52(7):641-8. · 2.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Transparency has become a hottest topic and a growing movement in the health care system worldwide. This study used a quasi-experimental design method to explore whether public reporting of medicine use information can improve rational drug use.Methods20 township hospitals and 274 doctors of City Y in Hubei Province, China were divided into the intervention and control groups on the basis of their characteristics. In the intervention group, the values and rankings of the average expenditure per prescription, percentage of prescriptions requiring antibiotics and percentage of prescriptions requiring injections of each hospital and doctor were publicly released to patients and doctors in an appropriate format monthly. Data were gathered both four months before and after the intervention. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize the observed covariate (gender, age, experience, education level, title, and monthly income) differences in the doctors¿ characteristics. 108 pairs of doctors were obtained after PSM. Chi-square test and t-test were employed to explore the effect of public reporting of medicine use information on rational drug use. The study was approved by the Committee of Tongji Medical College, Hua Zhong University of Science and Technology (IORG No: IORG0003571).ResultsIn baseline, the average expenditure per prescription of the 274 doctors was 42.82 RMB yuan (USD 6.97), the percentage of prescriptions requiring antibiotics was 63.00%, and the percentage of prescriptions requiring injections was 70.79%, all higher than the average of Hubei Province and the standard recommended by WHO. Before the intervention all the three indicators were all comparable (p > 0.05), whereas after the intervention, a significant difference (p < 0.05) was found for the percentage of prescriptions requiring injections between the intervention (64.66%) and control groups (70.52%).Conclusions Irrational drug use remains a policy issue in township hospitals in the study area. We demonstrated that publicly reporting medicine use information could decrease the percentage of prescriptions requiring injections in township hospitals in China, but this effect was not observed on prescription costs and antibiotics use. Analyses of the mechanism and long-term effect of public reporting of medicine use information are recommended for further studies.
    BMC Health Services Research 11/2014; 14(1):492. · 1.66 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 5, 2014