5. Public Reporting as a Quality Improvement Strategy

Author,
Year 10. KQ3:Results 11. KQ4: Results 12. KQ5: Results 13. KQ6: Results 14. Summary
Dijs-Elsinga
2010 107
50.7% of patients who
compared hospitals vs
60.9% of those who did
not indicated that they
were aware of
information to compare
hospitals. 77.8% and
67.9%, respectively,
knew where they could
find this information.
When asked whether
they looked up
information on more
than one hospital,
45.12% vs 73.3% said
that they did not while
18.3% and 4.1%,
respectively, said that
they compared hospitals
and then made a choice.
Not reported Not reported Not reported Female gender
(compared to male)
vs. 65
years) vs.
Intermediate level
of education
(compared to low
leve of education)
vs. high leve of
education
(compared to low
level of education)
General hospital
information used in
2005-2006 to make
decision about
hospital: OR (95%
CI)
Hospital has a
good reputation:
0.63 (0.46-0.86);
I-45
In past choices patients
relied primarily on hospital
reputation. Participants
say they would use more
information in future
decisions, but previous
experience is the most
frequently mentioned
(25.3%) and the most
frequently identified
quality information for
future use are ‘experience
with procedure in the
presence of cancer’’
(9.2%) and ‘percentage of
patients with textbook
outcomes (5.3%),.
Younger and more
educated people are more
likely to say they will use
quality in the future, but no
differences were found by
15. Funder of
Research/
Report
Not reported