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 3. Summary of evidence: public reporting on hospitals (continued)<br />

Author Year<br />

Key<br />

(QA) <strong>Public</strong> Report Study Overview<br />

Question Results<br />

Foreman<br />

1995 82<br />

Hospital<br />

Uses two of PHC4’s public<br />

4 ↔ Identification of high and low quality hospitals in PA public reports did<br />

Effective-ness reports (HER and CABG<br />

not lead to any significant change in patient growth in any of the 9 regions<br />

(Poor)<br />

Report (HER) Consumer Guide) to examine<br />

whether PA hospitals that<br />

studied.<br />

Consumer received high or low quality<br />

Guide to ratings in the first year of fully<br />

Coronary Artery rele<strong>as</strong>ed data (1989 or 1990)<br />

Byp<strong>as</strong>s Graft experienced subsequent<br />

Surgery (CABG changes in patient<br />

Guide)<br />

admissions.<br />

N=156 Hospitals<br />

Friedberg<br />

2009 67<br />

One of 10 Examines whether public<br />

2 ↔ No evidence that public reporting incre<strong>as</strong>ed anti-biotic use or<br />

Hospital-level reporting is <strong>as</strong>sociated with<br />

inappropriate ED diagnosis. Waiting times for patients with and without<br />

(Good)<br />

performance overdiagnosis of pneumonia,<br />

respiratory symptoms incre<strong>as</strong>ed slightly after public reporting, but expected<br />

me<strong>as</strong>ures excessive antibiotic use, or<br />

over prioritization of patients with respiratory symptoms not evident.<br />

reported by the inappropriate prioritization of<br />

Hospital <strong>Quality</strong> patients with respiratory<br />

Alliance<br />

symptoms visiting EDs in the<br />

U.S. before and after public<br />

reporting (Jan 2004).<br />

Ghali, 1997 39<br />

NYS CSRS and Compares CABG surgery<br />

1 ↔ Adjusted mortality rates for CABG c<strong>as</strong>es in M<strong>as</strong>sachusetts where there<br />

(Fair)<br />

Northern New mortality trends during 1990,<br />

is no public reporting fell from 1990-1994<br />

England 1992 and 1994 in<br />

↔ M<strong>as</strong>sachusetts experienced similar reductions in the percent of in-<br />

M<strong>as</strong>sachusetts where there<br />

hospital mortality <strong>as</strong> northern New England where an outcomes feedback<br />

is no public reporting to the<br />

program w<strong>as</strong> in place.<br />

decre<strong>as</strong>es in mortality in NY<br />

↑ New York, where public reporting w<strong>as</strong> present, had slightly larger<br />

State and northern New<br />

England where there is public<br />

reporting and outcomes<br />

feedback programs,<br />

respectively.<br />

N=12 hospitals<br />

M<strong>as</strong>sachusetts Isolated<br />

CABG Procedures: 1990<br />

N=5395; 1992 N=5,818; 1994<br />

N=5,915<br />

reductions in unadjusted in-hospital mortality than M<strong>as</strong>sachusetts.<br />

58

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!