Who is at greatest risk for receiving poor-quality health care?

Department of Medicine , University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, United States
New England Journal of Medicine (Impact Factor: 54.42). 03/2006; 354(11):1147-56. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa044464
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT American adults frequently do not receive recommended health care. The extent to which the quality of health care varies among sociodemographic groups is unknown.
We used data from medical records and telephone interviews of a random sample of people living in 12 communities to assess the quality of care received by those who had made at least one visit to a health care provider during the previous two years. We constructed aggregate scores from 439 indicators of the quality of care for 30 chronic and acute conditions and for disease prevention. We estimated the rates at which members of different sociodemographic subgroups received recommended care, with adjustment for the number of chronic and acute conditions, use of health care services, and other sociodemographic characteristics.
Overall, participants received 54.9 percent of recommended care. Even after adjustment, there was only moderate variation in quality-of-care scores among sociodemographic subgroups. Women had higher overall scores than men (56.6 percent vs. 52.3 percent, P<0.001), and participants below the age of 31 years had higher scores than those over the age of 64 years (57.5 percent vs. 52.1 percent, P<0.001). Blacks (57.6 percent) and Hispanics (57.5 percent) had slightly higher scores than whites (54.1 percent, P<0.001 for both comparisons). Those with annual household incomes over 50,000 dollars had higher scores than those with incomes of less than 15,000 dollars (56.6 percent vs. 53.1 percent, P<0.001).
The differences among sociodemographic subgroups in the observed quality of health care are small in comparison with the gap for each subgroup between observed and desirable quality of health care. Quality-improvement programs that focus solely on reducing disparities among sociodemographic subgroups may miss larger opportunities to improve care.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: The purpose was to investigate the role of an intra-organizational change facilitating function (CFF) in relation to a multi-level development initiative in a health care organization. Involved actors’ views on factors in need of attention and how the CFF related to these factors were studied. Design/methodology/approach: A longitudinal case study design was used, combining data from questionnaires, process diaries and interviews with employees at the CFF, managers and clinic staff. Findings: Factors on micro, meso and macro levels, crucial to attend to, were highlighted by respondents at staff and managerial levels. The CFF related to some of these factors by acting upon them, or by developing plans to handle them, while other factors were unattended to. The CFF activities also had indirect influence on other factors. The CFF role and responsibilities were not clearly defined beforehand and a need to clarify a division of roles and responsibilities is highlighted. Research limitations/implications: Our study contributes to current knowledge on facilitation of change by relating it to an organizational dimension of implementation. Practical implications The description of important factors to handle during a large organizational change process and issues a CFF can encounter may aid others involved in designing and managing large organizational development initiatives. Originality/value The study elaborates on less studied functions and roles of an intra-organizational change facilitating function in relation to factors of vital importance for organizational change and development in health care organizations.
    International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 02/2015; 7(1). DOI:10.1108/IJQSS-01-2015-0004
  • International Journal of Health Promotion and Education 06/2014; 52(4):181-187. DOI:10.1080/14635240.2014.894669
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Improving the transparency of information about the quality of health care providers is one way to improve health care quality. It is assumed that Internet information steers patients toward better-performing health care providers and will motivate providers to improve quality. However, the effect of public reporting on hospital quality is still small. One of the reasons is that users find it difficult to understand the formats in which information is presented. We analyzed the presentation of risk-adjusted mortality rate (RAMR) for coronary angiography in the 10 most commonly used German public report cards to analyze the impact of information presentation features on their comprehensibility. We wanted to determine which information presentation features were utilized, were preferred by users, led to better comprehension, and had similar effects to those reported in evidence-based recommendations described in the literature. The study consisted of 5 steps: (1) identification of best-practice evidence about the presentation of information on hospital report cards; (2) selection of a single risk-adjusted quality indicator; (3) selection of a sample of designs adopted by German public report cards; (4) identification of the information presentation elements used in public reporting initiatives in Germany; and (5) an online panel completed an online questionnaire that was conducted to determine if respondents were able to identify the hospital with the lowest RAMR and if respondents' hospital choices were associated with particular information design elements. Evidence-based recommendations were made relating to the following information presentation features relevant to report cards: evaluative table with symbols, tables without symbols, bar charts, bar charts without symbols, bar charts with symbols, symbols, evaluative word labels, highlighting, order of providers, high values to indicate good performance, explicit statements of whether high or low values indicate good performance, and incomplete data ("N/A" as a value). When investigating the RAMR in a sample of 10 hospitals' report cards, 7 of these information presentation features were identified. Of these, 5 information presentation features improved comprehensibility in a manner reported previously in literature. To our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically analyze the most commonly used public reporting card designs used in Germany. Best-practice evidence identified in international literature was in agreement with 5 findings about German report card designs: (1) avoid tables without symbols, (2) include bar charts with symbols, (3) state explicitly whether high or low values indicate good performance or provide a "good quality" range, (4) avoid incomplete data (N/A given as a value), and (5) rank hospitals by performance. However, these findings are preliminary and should be subject of further evaluation. The implementation of 4 of these recommendations should not present insurmountable obstacles. However, ranking hospitals by performance may present substantial difficulties.
    Journal of Medical Internet Research 01/2015; 17(3-3):e68. DOI:10.2196/jmir.3414 · 4.67 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jul 24, 2014