5. Public Reporting as a Quality Improvement Strategy

Table H3. Hospital quantitative studies: Columns 14-18 of 18 (pages H-40 to H-51) (continued)
15. Results: KQ5
(Impact of Public
Author,
Report
16. Results: KQ6 (Impact of
18. Funder of
Year (QA) 14. Results KQ4: (Selection by Patients and Payers) Characteristics) Contextual Factors) 17. Summary/Conclusion Research/Report
Caron 2004 8
None None None Author’s summary: Pearson’s Not Reported
(Fair)
correlations indicate that
improvements in clinical
outcomes were correlated and
sustained over time. In testing
this approach, we predicted 28
correlations between the 7
outcome variables. 23 were in
the predicted direction. These
results suggest that
organizations are attempting to
support CQI and not focus
efforts in one clinical domain.
Clough
2002 10
None None None Author’s conclusion: The data Not Reported
here do not support the claim of
(Fair)
a unique decline in mortality in
Cleveland during the first 4
years of public data releases by
CHQC.
Cutler
2004 11
None None None Public reporting affected the
volume of CABG cases and
NIA
(Fair)
future quality at hospitals
Dranove
2003 13
None None Report Cards led to
substantial selection by
(Good)
providers as the severity of
patients receiving CABG
declined. Second, hospitals in
PA and NY experienced
relative declines in the withinhospitals
heterogeneity, i.e.
teaching schools picked up
most of the severe cases.
Third, report cards led to
higher levels of Medicare
hospitals expenditures and
greater rates of adverse
health outcomes.
H-59