Mechanisms and impact of public reporting on physicians and hospitals’ performance: A systematic review (2000–2020)

Abstract

Background Public performance reporting (PPR) of physician and hospital data aims to improve health outcomes by promoting quality improvement and informing consumer choice. However, previous studies have demonstrated inconsistent effects of PPR, potentially due to the various PPR characteristics examined. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review of the impact and mechanisms (selection and change), by which PPR exerts its influence. Methods Studies published between 2000 and 2020 were retrieved from five databases and eight reviews. Data extraction, quality assessment and synthesis were conducted. Studies were categorised into: user and provider responses to PPR and impact of PPR on quality of care. Results Forty-five studies were identified: 24 on user and provider responses to PPR, 14 on impact of PPR on quality of care, and seven on both. Most of the studies reported positive effects of PPR on the selection of providers by patients, purchasers and providers, quality improvement activities in primary care clinics and hospitals, clinical outcomes and patient experiences. Conclusions The findings provide moderate level of evidence to support the role of PPR in stimulating quality improvement activities, informing consumer choice and improving clinical outcomes. There was some evidence to demonstrate a relationship between PPR and patient experience. The effects of PPR varied across clinical areas which may be related to the type of indicators, level of data reported and the mode of dissemination. It is important to ensure that the design and implementation of PPR considered the perspectives of different users and the health system in which PPR operates in. There is a need to account for factors such as the structural characteristics and culture of the hospitals that could influence the uptake of PPR.

The Lancet Global Health Commission on financing primary health care: putting people at the centre

“…This relates to the importance of preserving provider autonomy. Similarly, there are direct non-financial incentives that can improve quality of care, such as opportunities for providers to share data on their performance with other professionals or with the public, 218 and social recognition. 212 Health workers appreciate having data that validates their perceptions that they are doing a good job; comparing them with their peers can be a powerful incentive to improve their practices.…”

Challenges in Implementing the WHO Hospital Readiness Checklist for the COVID-19 Pandemic in Indonesian Hospitals: A Qualitative Study

“…The checklist results that were returned to the hospital could be used as evaluation material and could help the hospital to identify strengths and weaknesses. 6 , 8 , The checklist should be simple and takes into account user perspectives and needs, 21 so that hospitals can receive feedback on the assessment either from DHO, PHO and MOH.…”

Impacts of patient and family engagement in hospital planning and improvement: qualitative interviews with patient/family advisors and hospital staff

“…The findings of this study have several implications for policy, practice and research. Healthcare systems and hospitals routinely monitor performance to publicly report on quality and safety, and to demonstrate eligibility for value-based funding [ 24 ]. Although PE in planning and improvement is widespread, to date the only measure used by hospitals to report PE activity was presence of a patient/family advisory committee [ 25 ], a measure with limited utility because research shows that PE can be token [ 10 ] As a concrete knowledge output, components of the Impacts of Patient/Family Engagement on Hospital Planning and Improvement Framework (Fig.…”