Literature DB >> 30188566

Impact of public release of performance data on the behaviour of healthcare consumers and providers.

David Metcalfe1, Arturo J Rios Diaz, Olubode A Olufajo, M Sofia Massa, Nicole Abm Ketelaar, Signe A Flottorp, Daniel C Perry.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is becoming increasingly common to publish information about the quality and performance of healthcare organisations and individual professionals. However, we do not know how this information is used, or the extent to which such reporting leads to quality improvement by changing the behaviour of healthcare consumers, providers, and purchasers.
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effects of public release of performance data, from any source, on changing the healthcare utilisation behaviour of healthcare consumers, providers (professionals and organisations), and purchasers of care. In addition, we sought to estimate the effects on healthcare provider performance, patient outcomes, and staff morale. SEARCH
METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers on 26 June 2017. We checked reference lists of all included studies to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised or non-randomised trials, interrupted time series, and controlled before-after studies of the effects of publicly releasing data regarding any aspect of the performance of healthcare organisations or professionals. Each study had to report at least one main outcome related to selecting or changing care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies for eligibility and extracted data. For each study, we extracted data about the target groups (healthcare consumers, healthcare providers, and healthcare purchasers), performance data, main outcomes (choice of healthcare provider, and improvement by means of changes in care), and other outcomes (awareness, attitude, knowledge of performance data, and costs). Given the substantial degree of clinical and methodological heterogeneity between the studies, we presented the findings for each policy in a structured format, but did not undertake a meta-analysis. MAIN
RESULTS: We included 12 studies that analysed data from more than 7570 providers (e.g. professionals and organisations), and a further 3,333,386 clinical encounters (e.g. patient referrals, prescriptions). We included four cluster-randomised trials, one cluster-non-randomised trial, six interrupted time series studies, and one controlled before-after study. Eight studies were undertaken in the USA, and one each in Canada, Korea, China, and The Netherlands. Four studies examined the effect of public release of performance data on consumer healthcare choices, and four on improving quality.There was low-certainty evidence that public release of performance data may make little or no difference to long-term healthcare utilisation by healthcare consumers (3 studies; 18,294 insurance plan beneficiaries), or providers (4 studies; 3,000,000 births, and 67 healthcare providers), or to provider performance (1 study; 82 providers). However, there was also low-certainty evidence to suggest that public release of performance data may slightly improve some patient outcomes (5 studies, 315,092 hospitalisations, and 7502 providers). There was low-certainty evidence from a single study to suggest that public release of performance data may have differential effects on disadvantaged populations. There was no evidence about effects on healthcare utilisation decisions by purchasers, or adverse effects. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: The existing evidence base is inadequate to directly inform policy and practice. Further studies should consider whether public release of performance data can improve patient outcomes, as well as healthcare processes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30188566      PMCID: PMC6513271          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004538.pub3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  61 in total

1.  Using systematic measurement to target consumer activation strategies.

Authors:  Judith H Hibbard
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  2008-12-03       Impact factor: 3.929

2.  What is quality anyway? Performance reports that clearly communicate to consumers the meaning of quality of care.

Authors:  Judith H Hibbard; Jessica Greene; Debbie Daniel
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  2010-01-21       Impact factor: 3.929

3.  Consumers' interpretation and use of comparative information on the quality of health care: the effect of presentation approaches.

Authors:  Olga C Damman; Michelle Hendriks; Jany Rademakers; Peter Spreeuwenberg; Diana M J Delnoij; Peter P Groenewegen
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-05-25       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  Public reporting in cardiovascular medicine: accountability, unintended consequences, and promise for improvement.

Authors:  Jason H Wasfy; William B Borden; Eric A Secemsky; James M McCabe; Robert W Yeh
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 29.690

5.  Reporting individual surgeon outcomes does not lead to risk aversion in abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery.

Authors:  A Saratzis; A Thatcher; M F Bath; D A Sidloff; M J Bown; J Shakespeare; R D Sayers; C Imray
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2017-01-10       Impact factor: 1.891

6.  Public Reporting of Mortality Rates for Hospitalized Medicare Patients and Trends in Mortality for Reported Conditions.

Authors:  Karen E Joynt; E John Orav; Jie Zheng; Ashish K Jha
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-05-31       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Effectiveness of public report cards for improving the quality of cardiac care: the EFFECT study: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Jack V Tu; Linda R Donovan; Douglas S Lee; Julie T Wang; Peter C Austin; David A Alter; Dennis T Ko
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-11-18       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 8.  Systematic review: the evidence that publishing patient care performance data improves quality of care.

Authors:  Constance H Fung; Yee-Wei Lim; Soeren Mattke; Cheryl Damberg; Paul G Shekelle
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-01-15       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  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

Review 10.  Patient Mobility for Elective Secondary Health Care Services in Response to Patient Choice Policies: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Ajay Aggarwal; Daniel Lewis; Malcolm Mason; Richard Sullivan; Jan van der Meulen
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  2016-06-28       Impact factor: 2.971

View more
  10 in total

1.  Public Reporting of Nurse Staffing in the United States.

Authors:  Pamela B de Cordova; Monika Pogorzelska-Maziarz; Myra Emma Eckenhoff; Matthew D McHugh
Journal:  J Nurs Regul       Date:  2019-10

2.  Quality Assurance Measures and Mortality After Stroke.

Authors:  Max Geraedts; Dijana Ebbeler; Nina Timmesfeld; Manfred Kaps; Klaus Berger; Björn Misselwitz; Christian Günster; Patrik Dröge; Michael Schneider
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2021-12-17       Impact factor: 5.594

3.  Ethics and Collateral Findings in Pragmatic Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Stephanie R Morain; Kevin Weinfurt; Juli Bollinger; Gail Geller; Debra Jh Mathews; Jeremy Sugarman
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 11.229

4.  Appropriateness, effectiveness and safety of care delivered in Canadian hospitals: a longitudinal assessment on the utility of publicly reported performance trend data between 2012-2013 and 2016-2017.

Authors:  Omid Fekri; Edgar Manukyan; Niek Klazinga
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-06-16       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Citizen perspectives on the use of publicly reported primary care performance information: Results from citizen-patient dialogues in three Canadian provinces.

Authors:  Sharon Johnston; Julia Abelson; Sabrina T Wong; Julia Langton; Mathew Hogel; Fred Burge; William Hogg
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2019-05-10       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  [How do internal medicine patients choose their hospital? A cross-sectional study].

Authors:  W de Cruppé; M-C Kummer; M Geraedts
Journal:  Dtsch Med Wochenschr       Date:  2021-12-03       Impact factor: 0.628

Review 7.  [Effects of statutory quality assurance in acute inpatient care].

Authors:  Max Geraedts; Werner de Cruppé
Journal:  Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz       Date:  2022-02-04       Impact factor: 1.513

8.  Developing key performance indicators for the Canadian chiropractic profession: a modified Delphi study.

Authors:  Marc-André Blanchette; Silvano Mior; Shawn Thistle; Kent Stuber
Journal:  Chiropr Man Therap       Date:  2022-08-01

9.  Can competition improve hospital quality of care? A difference-in-differences approach to evaluate the effect of increasing quality transparency on hospital quality.

Authors:  Christoph Strumann; Alexander Geissler; Reinhard Busse; Christoph Pross
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2022-01-08

10.  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

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.