Literature DB >> 25827906

Should English healthcare providers be penalised for failing to collect patient-reported outcome measures? A retrospective analysis.

Nils Gutacker1, Andrew Street2, Manuel Gomes3, Chris Bojke2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The best practice tariff for hip and knee replacement in the English National Health Service (NHS) rewards providers based on improvements in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) collected before and after surgery. Providers only receive a bonus if at least 50% of their patients complete the preoperative questionnaire. We determined how many providers failed to meet this threshold prior to the policy introduction and assessed longitudinal stability of participation rates.
DESIGN: Retrospective observational study using data from Hospital Episode Statistics and the national PROM programme from April 2009 to March 2012. We calculated participation rates based on either (a) all PROM records or (b) only those that could be linked to inpatient records; constructed confidence intervals around rates to account for sampling variation; applied precision weighting to allow for volume; and applied risk adjustment.
SETTING: NHS hospitals and private providers in England. PARTICIPANTS: NHS patients undergoing elective unilateral hip and knee replacement surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of providers with participation rates statistically significantly below 50%.
RESULTS: Crude rates identified many providers that failed to achieve the 50% threshold but there were substantially fewer after adjusting for uncertainty and precision. While important, risk adjustment required restricting the analysis to linked data. Year-on-year correlation between provider participation rates was moderate.
CONCLUSIONS: Participation rates have improved over time and only a small number of providers now fall below the threshold, but administering preoperative questionnaires remains problematic in some providers. We recommend that participation rates are based on linked data and take into account sampling variation. © The Royal Society of Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  best practice tariff; financial incentives; patient-reported outcome measures; response rates

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25827906      PMCID: PMC4535435          DOI: 10.1177/0141076815576700

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J R Soc Med        ISSN: 0141-0768            Impact factor:   5.344


  8 in total

1.  Public reporting on quality in the United States and the United Kingdom.

Authors:  Martin N Marshall; Paul G Shekelle; Huw T O Davies; Peter C Smith
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2003 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.301

Review 2.  The powers and pitfalls of payment for performance.

Authors:  Alan Maynard
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement.

Authors:  J Dawson; R Fitzpatrick; D Murray; A Carr
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1998-01

4.  Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement.

Authors:  J Dawson; R Fitzpatrick; A Carr; D Murray
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1996-03

5.  Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods.

Authors:  R G Newcombe
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-04-30       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 6.  Effects of pay for performance in health care: a systematic review of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Frank Eijkenaar; Martin Emmert; Manfred Scheppach; Oliver Schöffski
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  2013-02-04       Impact factor: 2.980

7.  Prospects for comparing European hospitals in terms of quality and safety: lessons from a comparative study in five countries.

Authors:  Susan Burnett; Anna Renz; Siri Wiig; Alexandra Fernandes; Anne Marie Weggelaar; Johan Calltorp; Janet E Anderson; Glenn Robert; Charles Vincent; Naomi Fulop
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2013-01-04       Impact factor: 2.038

8.  Estimating recruitment rates for routine use of patient reported outcome measures and the impact on provider comparisons.

Authors:  Andrew Hutchings; Jenny Neuburger; Jan van der Meulen; Nick Black
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-02-11       Impact factor: 2.655

  8 in total
  6 in total

1.  Patient-Reported Outcomes: Understanding Surgical Efficacy and Quality from the Patient's Perspective.

Authors:  Jessica I Billig; Erika D Sears; Breanna N Travis; Jennifer F Waljee
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2019-09-05       Impact factor: 5.344

2.  Addressing Missing Data in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS): Implications for the Use of PROMS for Comparing Provider Performance.

Authors:  Manuel Gomes; Nils Gutacker; Chris Bojke; Andrew Street
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2015-03-05       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  Multidimensional performance assessment of public sector organisations using dominance criteria.

Authors:  Nils Gutacker; Andrew Street
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2017-08-18       Impact factor: 3.046

4.  Bias through selective inclusion and attrition: Representativeness when comparing provider performance with routine outcome monitoring data.

Authors:  Edwin de Beurs; Lisanne Warmerdam; Jos Twisk
Journal:  Clin Psychol Psychother       Date:  2019-04-23

5.  Choice of hospital: Which type of quality matters?

Authors:  Nils Gutacker; Luigi Siciliani; Giuseppe Moscelli; Hugh Gravelle
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2016-08-22       Impact factor: 3.804

6.  Using EQ-5D Data to Measure Hospital Performance: Are General Population Values Distorting Patients' Choices?

Authors:  Nils Gutacker; Thomas Patton; Koonal Shah; David Parkin
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 2.583

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.