Literature DB >> 23579038

Can public reporting impact patient outcomes and disparities? A systematic review.

Zackary D Berger1, Susan M Joy, Susan Hutfless, John F P Bridges.   

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.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Disparities; Public reporting; Systematic reviews

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23579038     DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.03.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient Educ Couns        ISSN: 0738-3991


  9 in total

1.  [National quality indicators in Swiss nursing homes : Questionnaire survey on data reliability and users' view on the usefulness].

Authors:  Franziska Zúñiga; Catherine Blatter; Ruth Wicki; Michael Simon
Journal:  Z Gerontol Geriatr       Date:  2019-07-11       Impact factor: 1.281

2.  Texas Hospital's Perspectives About NICU Performance Measures: A Mixed-Methods Study.

Authors:  Julie R Doherty; Andrew Schaefer; David C Goodman
Journal:  Qual Manag Health Care       Date:  2022-04-04       Impact factor: 1.147

3.  Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose [The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same].

Authors:  Kate L Lapane
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  A Qualitative Study of Vulnerable Patient Views of Type 2 Diabetes Consumer Reports.

Authors:  Daniel R Longo; Benjamin F Crabtree; Maria B Pellerano; Jenna Howard; Barry Saver; Edward L Hannan; Justin Lee; Michael T Lundberg; Roy Sabo
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Public reporting as a prescriptions quality improvement measure in primary care settings in China: variations in effects associated with diagnoses.

Authors:  Yuqing Tang; Chaojie Liu; Xinping Zhang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-12-20       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 6.  Developments in the Frequency of Ratings and Evaluation Tendencies: A Review of German Physician Rating Websites.

Authors:  Swantje Reimann; Stuart McLennan; Daniel Strech
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2017-08-25       Impact factor: 5.428

7.  Perceived barriers to effective implementation of public reporting of hospital performance data in Australia: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Rachel Canaway; Marie Bismark; David Dunt; Margaret Kelaher
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2017-06-07       Impact factor: 2.655

8.  The Impact of Public Performance Reporting on Market Share, Mortality, and Patient Mix Outcomes Associated With Coronary Artery Bypass Grafts and Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (2000-2016): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  David Dunt; Khic-Houy Prang; Hana Sabanovic; Margaret Kelaher
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Rejected Online Feedback From a Swiss Physician Rating Website Between 2008 and 2017: Analysis of 2352 Ratings.

Authors:  Stuart McLennan
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2020-08-03       Impact factor: 5.428

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.