5. Public Reporting as a Quality Improvement Strategy

Author,
Year 10. KQ3:Results 11. KQ4: Results 12. KQ5: Results 13. KQ6: Results 14. Summary
Fasolo
2010 108
Not Studied In response to the open
ended probe about what
Order the indicators were
presented in the report
Not Studied The finding are that
preferences can be
is important the top three card mattered. Waiting
constructed or influenced
responses were 1. time and proportion of
by discussion or additional
quality of doctors, 2. people reporting
information. Order (more
availability of specialists, improvement were
attention paid to first) and
and 3. distance to switched between 1st
layout matter. And clear
hospital. When given and 7th on the report
labels, consistent format
cards with indicators, the card and when waiting
and summative measure
three selected were time was first it was rated
are likely to reduce
waiting times,
cleanliness and
as more important.
cognitive burden.
treatment with respect Participants used
and dignity. After indicators provided on
discussion as a group report card even if they
these changed to waiting said they were not
times, survival rate and important at earlier stage
risk of MFSA infection. and did not consider
When selecting from some they said were
report card the most important. The looked for
important were 1. patterns across the
waiting times, 2. risk of indicators and preferred
MSRA infection and 3. a summary score,
overall quality of service. particularly participants
who were older and less
literate.
Participants said they
understood the
indicators, but when
asked to explain them,
they often gave incorrect
definitions.
Most wanted some type
of color or graphic label,
but multiple labels were
confusing. Missing data
was considered
suspicious.
I-50
15. Funder of
Research/
Report
Not Reported