5. Public Reporting as a Quality Improvement Strategy

Author
Year
Werner
2011 95
Werner
2012 96
Zinn
2005 97
Zinn
2008 98
1. Study Purpose 2.
7. Public
9. Context:
10. Context:
Type of
and/or a priori Geographic 3. Study 4. Sample/Population or 5. Primary
Report: Name 8. Context: Decision maker Decision/
Hypotheses (if stated) Location Design Population
Comparison 6. Outcomes & Description* Environment Characteristics Choice
To determine if public USA Multiple Short stay (post acute) NH Period prior to public Patient risk NH Compare None None None
reporting on post acute
Group residents admitted from report and after. States (defined by for Post Acute
care in NHs results in
Interrupted 2001 to 2003
where NH Compare admission Care
changes in the types of
Time Series n=8,139 NHs and was launched earlier assessment of
people choosing high
4,437,746 post acute as a pilot to non pilot pain, delirium and
and low quality
admissions.
states.
difficulty walking
providers (patient
which correspond
sorting)
to the quality
measures) and the
match between
patient risk and
quality of the
facility.
To determine if public USA Multiple n=7675 NHs in NH 2000-2002 pre NH Market Share NH Compare or Capacity Education level None
reporting influences
Groups, Compare that have more Compare to
Post Acute constraints
patients’ selection of
Pre-Post than 1 NH in their market 2003 post NH
Care
NHs for post acute
n=3,008,731 admissions Compare
care.
in 2000-2003 who did not Small NHs not in NH
have a NH admission in Compare use in the
the prior year
falsification test
To examine the USA Time Series All NHs reporting for NH 5 quarters (15 months 10 Quality NH Compare None NH characteristics none
relationship between
Post Only Compare during the time ) NH Compare Measures included
publicly reported
period
quarterly reports from in NH Compare at
quality measures and
N varies by quality Nov. 2002 (first time of study
NH characteristics.
measure
publication) through
over 13,00 for long-stay
resident measures, over
9,000 for short-stay
resident measures
January 2004
To assess whether USA Cross- 10% random sample of Cross sectional 1. Immediate NH Compare None NH characteristics none
differences in strategic
sectional NH administrators. comparison of Response
including for-profit
orientation are
724 out of 1502
response to NH 2. No response to
status, chain
associated with
responded (48.2%) Compare by different NHC
affiliation, low
differences in NH
types of strategic 3. Discussed with
quality scores, and
responses to NH
Same survey as Mukamel orientation:
residents or
perceived
Compare
2007 and 2008
Prospectors change families
competitiveness of
frequently and value 4. Investigate
the market were
innovation and reasons for poor
control variables,
flexibility
scores
not outcomes
Defenders focus on 5. Revise job
core services and descriptions
emphasize operating 6. Change priorities
efficiencies.
for QI
Analyzers blend 7. Invest in mew
characteristics of the technology of
1st two.
Reactors lack a
equipment.
strategy.
All in response to
NH Compare and
all as self reported
by survey
respondents.
N-6