Literature DB >> 24673801

The use of publicly available quality information when choosing a hospital or health-care provider: the role of the GP.

Nora Doering1, Hans Maarse2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients barely use publicly available quality information for making a decision concerning secondary health care, but instead rely on information coming from their general practitioner (GP). An intermediate role of GPs has been suggested concerning the use of publicly available quality information. The aim of the study is to quantify and explore GPs' use of publicly available quality information when referring patients or suggesting secondary health-care provider to them.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, an invitation to an electronic questionnaire was sent to 858 GPs in the south of the Netherlands. GPs were asked about their use of and perception towards publicly available quality information through closed-ended and open-ended questions. Differences among subgroups were tested for significance using Pearson's chi-square tests.
RESULTS: The majority of respondents (89.5%) never or rarely use publicly available quality information. They perceive them as invalid and unreliable. Distance to the hospital, prior experiences and personal contacts with specialists guide them when advising and referring. Almost 90% of respondents never or rarely suggest quality information as support for decision making to their patients. No significant differences between subgroups were observed.
CONCLUSION: This study is among the firsts exploring and quantifying GPs' use of publicly available quality information. The results suggest that publicly available quality information appears in its current format and application not useful for GPs. GPs have to be aware of their influential role in patients' decision making and possibly have to take more responsibility in guiding them through the jungle of quality information.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Decision making; patient-doctor communication; quality information

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24673801      PMCID: PMC5810672          DOI: 10.1111/hex.12187

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Expect        ISSN: 1369-6513            Impact factor:   3.377


  21 in total

1.  Connections between quality measurement and improvement.

Authors:  Donald M Berwick; Brent James; Molly Joel Coye
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  How do patients use information on health providers?

Authors:  Martin Marshall; Vin McLoughlin
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-11-25

3.  Why do patients bypass the nearest hospital? An empirical analysis for orthopaedic care and neurosurgery in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Marco Varkevisser; Stéphanie A van der Geest
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2007-01-26

4.  The governance of quality management in dutch health care: new developments and strategic challenges.

Authors:  J A M Maarse; D Ruwaard; C Spreeuwenberg
Journal:  Qual Manag Health Care       Date:  2013 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 0.926

5.  Themes affecting health-care consumers' choice of a hospital for elective surgery when receiving web-based comparative consumer information.

Authors:  Albine Moser; Irene Korstjens; Trudy van der Weijden; Huibert Tange
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2009-12-16

6.  How do elderly patients decide where to go for major surgery? Telephone interview survey.

Authors:  Lisa M Schwartz; Steven Woloshin; John D Birkmeyer
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-09-28

Review 7.  What benefits will choice bring to patients? Literature review and assessment of implications.

Authors:  Marianna Fotaki; Martin Roland; Alan Boyd; Ruth McDonald; Rod Scheaff; Liz Smith
Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy       Date:  2008-07

8.  Demand-driven care and hospital choice. Dutch health policy toward demand-driven care: results from a survey into hospital choice.

Authors:  Christiaan J Lako; Pauline Rosenau
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2008-07-19

Review 9.  Empowerment: from philosophy to practice.

Authors:  C Feste; R M Anderson
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  1995-09

10.  The use of quality information by general practitioners: does it alter choices? A randomized clustered study.

Authors:  David Ikkersheim; Xander Koolman
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2013-07-08       Impact factor: 2.497

View more
  5 in total

1.  The use of public performance reporting by general practitioners: a study of perceptions and referral behaviours.

Authors:  Khic-Houy Prang; Rachel Canaway; Marie Bismark; David Dunt; Margaret Kelaher
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2018-02-12       Impact factor: 2.497

2.  Public performance reporting and hospital choice: a cross-sectional study of patients undergoing cancer surgery in the Australian private healthcare sector.

Authors:  Khic-Houy Prang; Rachel Canaway; Marie Bismark; David Dunt; Julie A Miller; Margaret Kelaher
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-04-27       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  National Evaluation of Patient Preferences in Selecting Hospitals and Health Care Providers.

Authors:  Ryan J Ellis; Tarik K Yuce; Daniel B Hewitt; Ryan P Merkow; Christine V Kinnier; Julie K Johnson; Karl Y Bilimoria
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 3.178

4.  Comparative performance information plays no role in the referral behaviour of GPs.

Authors:  Nicole A B M Ketelaar; Marjan J Faber; Glyn Elwyn; Gert P Westert; Jozé C Braspenning
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2014-08-27       Impact factor: 2.497

5.  Perspective of potential patients on the hospital volume-outcome relationship and the minimum volume threshold for total knee arthroplasty: a qualitative focus group and interview study.

Authors:  Charlotte M Kugler; Karina K De Santis; Tanja Rombey; Kaethe Goossen; Jessica Breuing; Nadja Könsgen; Tim Mathes; Simone Hess; René Burchard; Dawid Pieper
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2021-07-02       Impact factor: 2.655

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.