23.08.2013 Views

5. Public Reporting as a Quality Improvement Strategy

5. Public Reporting as a Quality Improvement Strategy

5. Public Reporting as a Quality Improvement Strategy

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Table H3. Hospital quantitative studies: Columns 14-18 of 18 (pages H-40 to H-51) (continued)<br />

1<strong>5.</strong> Results: KQ5<br />

(Impact of <strong>Public</strong><br />

Author,<br />

Report<br />

16. Results: KQ6 (Impact of<br />

18. Funder of<br />

Year (QA) 14. Results KQ4: (Selection by Patients and Payers) Characteristics) Contextual Factors) 17. Summary/Conclusion Research/Report<br />

Vladeck<br />

1988 42<br />

One-way ANOVA detected no significant differences in<br />

occupancy rates between study periods among the<br />

Not Studied Not Studied B<strong>as</strong>ed on these results, the None Listed<br />

rele<strong>as</strong>e of hospital mortality data<br />

(Poor) three groups: F=1.046, p=0.357, df=2.67<br />

in New York City did not impact<br />

consumers in expected<br />

No statistical significance and actual occupancy rates<br />

directions. Moreover, b<strong>as</strong>ed on<br />

went in opposite directions than expected (i.e.,<br />

ANOVA tests, there w<strong>as</strong> no<br />

Hospitals with higher-than-expected mortality rates<br />

statistical significance among<br />

experienced higher occupancy rates following public<br />

rele<strong>as</strong>e while those with lower-than-expected mortality<br />

rates actually experienced slightly higher occupancy<br />

rates. Those with <strong>as</strong>-expected mortality rates<br />

experienced a relatively level occupancy rate, but there<br />

the three groups.<br />

Wang<br />

2011 43<br />

(Good)<br />

Werner<br />

2010 44<br />

(Good)<br />

w<strong>as</strong> a very slight decre<strong>as</strong>e.<br />

HOSPITAL: Hospital Quarterly Volume (n=1469 hospital<br />

quarters)<br />

Mean volume:<br />

All CABG c<strong>as</strong>es - 76.5<br />

Low-severity CABG c<strong>as</strong>es - 4<strong>5.</strong>5<br />

High-Severity CABG c<strong>as</strong>es - 30.3<br />

High Mortality Flag:<br />

All CABG c<strong>as</strong>es -<strong>5.</strong>600<br />

Low-severity CABG c<strong>as</strong>es -4.477<br />

High-Severity CABG c<strong>as</strong>es -1.195<br />

Low Mortality Flag:<br />

All CABG c<strong>as</strong>es <strong>5.</strong>125<br />

Low-severity CABG c<strong>as</strong>es 4.669<br />

High-Severity CABG c<strong>as</strong>es 1.578<br />

None None <strong>Public</strong> reporting led to decre<strong>as</strong>e<br />

in volume for unrated and poor<br />

performing surgeons, but<br />

interestingly, the volume of the<br />

high performing surgeons does<br />

not incre<strong>as</strong>e by an offsetting<br />

amount. They do not find<br />

statistically significant effect on<br />

hospital volume once we control<br />

for unobserved heterogeneity.<br />

Severity analysis results in<br />

similar results.<br />

H-76<br />

Not Reported<br />

None None None Pennsylvania<br />

Department of Health

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!