Literature DB >> 32732781

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

Ryan J Ellis1,2, Tarik K Yuce1, Daniel B Hewitt1,3, Ryan P Merkow1,2, Christine V Kinnier4, Julie K Johnson1,5, Karl Y Bilimoria1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient utilization of public reporting has been suboptimal despite attempts to encourage use. Lack of utilization may be due to discordance between reported metrics and what patients want to know when making health care choices.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify measures of quality that individuals want to be presented in public reporting and explore factors associated with researching health care. RESEARCH
DESIGN: Patient interviews and focus groups were conducted to develop a survey exploring the relative importance of various health care measures.
SUBJECTS: Interviews and focus groups conducted at local outpatient clinics. A survey administered nationally on an anonymous digital platform. MEASURES: Likert scale responses were compared using tests of central tendency. Rank-order responses were compared using analysis of variance testing. Associations with binary outcomes were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression.
RESULTS: Overall, 4672 responses were received (42.0% response rate). Census balancing yielded 2004 surveys for analysis. Measures identified as most important were hospital reputation (considered important by 61.9%), physician experience (51.5%), and primary care recommendations (43.2%). Unimportant factors included guideline adherence (17.6%) and hospital academic affiliation (13.3%, P<0.001 for all compared with most important factors). Morbidity and mortality outcome measures were not among the most important factors. Patients were unlikely to rank outcome measures as the most important factors in choosing health care providers, irrespective of age, sex, educational status, or income.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients valued hospital reputation, physician experience, and primary care recommendations while publicly reported metrics like patient outcomes were less important. Public quality reports contain information that patients perceive to be of relatively low value, which may contribute to low utilization.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32732781      PMCID: PMC7492361          DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001374

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   3.178


  21 in total

1.  The relative importance of quality of care information when choosing a hospital for surgical treatment: a hospital choice experiment.

Authors:  P J Marang-van de Mheen; J Dijs-Elsinga; W Otten; M Versluijs; H J Smeets; R Vree; W J van der Made; J Kievit
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2011 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  Consumer attitudes about health care-acquired infections and hand hygiene.

Authors:  Maryanne McGuckin; Richard Waterman; Arlene Shubin
Journal:  Am J Med Qual       Date:  2006 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.852

3.  Choosing the best hospital: the limitations of public quality reporting.

Authors:  Michael B Rothberg; Elizabeth Morsi; Evan M Benjamin; Penelope S Pekow; Peter K Lindenauer
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2008 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 6.301

4.  Underlying reasons associated with hospital readmission following surgery in the United States.

Authors:  Ryan P Merkow; Mila H Ju; Jeanette W Chung; Bruce L Hall; Mark E Cohen; Mark V Williams; Thomas C Tsai; Clifford Y Ko; Karl Y Bilimoria
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Time for Transparent Standards in Quality Reporting by Health Care Organizations.

Authors:  Peter J Pronovost; Albert W Wu; J Matthew Austin
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2017-08-22       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Patient-Centered Care, Yes; Patients As Consumers, No.

Authors:  Michael K Gusmano; Karen J Maschke; Mildred Z Solomon
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 6.301

7.  Declines in hospital mortality associated with a regional initiative to measure hospital performance.

Authors:  G E Rosenthal; L Quinn; D L Harper
Journal:  Am J Med Qual       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 1.852

8.  Exploring How to Better Measure and Improve the Quality of Medication Reconciliation.

Authors:  Joshua M Pevnick; Jeffrey L Schnipper
Journal:  Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf       Date:  2017-03-29

9.  Which factors decided general practitioners' choice of hospital on behalf of their patients in an area with free choice of public hospital? A questionnaire study.

Authors:  Hans O Birk; Lars O Henriksen
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-05-25       Impact factor: 2.655

10.  Hospital performance trends on national quality measures and the association with Joint Commission accreditation.

Authors:  Stephen P Schmaltz; Scott C Williams; Mark R Chassin; Jerod M Loeb; Robert M Wachter
Journal:  J Hosp Med       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 2.960

View more
  2 in total

1.  The Majority of United States Citizens With Cancer do not Have Access to Carbon Ion Radiotherapy.

Authors:  Robert L Foote; Hirohiko Tsujii; Reiko Imai; Hiroshi Tsuji; Eugen B Hug; Tatsuaki Kanai; Jiade J Lu; Juergen Debus; Rita Engenhart-Cabillic; Anita Mahajan
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-07-08       Impact factor: 5.738

2.  Objective Data Reveals Gender Preferences for Patients' Primary Care Physician.

Authors:  Madelinn Fink; Kendall Klein; Kia Sayers; John Valentino; Claudia Leonardi; Amy Bronstone; Pamela M Wiseman; Vinod Dasa
Journal:  J Prim Care Community Health       Date:  2020 Jan-Dec
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.