Physicians' Views on Public Reporting of Hospital Quality Data

Barr, Judith K.; Bernard, Shulamit; Sofaer, Shoshanna; Giannotti, Tierney E.; Lenfestey, Nancy; Miranda, David J.

doi:10.1177/1077558708319734

Cited by 22 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A precondition for this kind of CPI usage is the reliability of the information and its sources. As in other studies, our GPs reported distrust of the content and validity of CPI [16, 23, 25]. As long as GPs do not trust CPI, other sources of information will remain more important in their referral considerations.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

“…A 1996 study among cardiologists and cardiac surgeons shows that the publication of report cards for grafts bypassing the coronary artery has little credibility and therefore little influence on referral recommendations [25]. A mixed group of physicians described several issues that made them sceptical of the data and concerned about using the information with patients [23]. Further, it appears that quality-of-care data have little impact on referral decisions [22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative performance information plays no role in the referral behaviour of GPs

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundComparative performance information (CPI) about the quality of hospital care is information used to identify high-quality hospitals and providers. As the gatekeeper to secondary care, the general practitioner (GP) can use CPI to reflect on the pros and cons of the available options with the patient and choose a provider best fitted to the patient’s needs. We investigated how GPs view their role in using CPI to choose providers and support patients.MethodWe used a mixed-method, sequential, exploratory design to conduct explorative interviews with 15 GPs about their referral routines, methods of referral consideration, patient involvement, and the role of CPI. Then we quantified the qualitative results by sending a survey questionnaire to 81 GPs affiliated with a representative national research network.ResultsSeventy GPs (86% response rate) filled out the questionnaire. Most GPs did not know where to find CPI (87%) and had never searched for it (94%). The GPs reported that they were not motivated to use CPI due to doubts about its role as support information, uncertainty about the effect of using CPI, lack of faith in better outcomes, and uncertainty about CPI content and validity. Nonetheless, most GPs believed that patients would like to be informed about quality-of-care differences (62%), and about half the GPs discussed quality-of-care differences with their patients (46%), though these discussions were not based on CPI.ConclusionDecisions about referrals to hospital care are not based on CPI exchanges during GP consultations. As a gatekeeper, the GP is in a good position to guide patients through the enormous amount of quality information that is available. Nevertheless, it is unclear how and whether the GP’s role in using information about quality of care in the referral process can grow, as patients hardly ever initiate a discussion based on CPI, though they seem to be increasingly more critical about differences in quality of care. Future research should address the conditions needed to support GPs’ ability and willingness to use CPI to guide their patients in the referral process.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative performance information plays no role in the referral behaviour of GPs

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This result was consistent with those of previous studies. Barr et al conducted an interview to explore the view of physicians on public reporting and determined that physicians perceived that public reporting lacked methodological rigor [19]. Rechel et al mapped the current approaches of public reporting in 11 high-income countries and learned that the accuracy and reliability of performance data were a main concern of public reporting [20].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

General practitioners’ perceptions of public reporting of institution and individual medicine prescribing data

Zhang

Tang

2016

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPublic reporting of institution- and individual-level performance data has recently become a popular topic in the health care field. This study (1) evaluated the perceptions of general practitioners on the public reporting of institutional and individual medicine prescribing data in primary care institutions, and (2) compared the difference among the perceptions of general practitioners on the dimensions of necessity, methodological rigor, and impact of public reporting medicine prescribing data.MethodsWe conducted a survey in 10 primary care institutions in Q city, Hubei province. General practitioners who hold prescribing license were eligible for this study; we surveyed all eligible general practitioners in July 2014. The survey instrument was developed based on previous studies and expert opinions. Paired t-test or nonparametric test was used to evaluate the difference in perceptions between the institutional and individual medicine prescribing data reporting. An analysis of variance test was used to analyze the score differences among the three dimensions (i.e., necessity, methodological rigor, and impact).ResultsA total of 154 general practitioners were surveyed in this study. No significant difference in the perceptions of general practitioners was observed between the institution- and individual-level medicine prescribing data reporting (p > 0.05). General practitioners have significantly different perceptions on the three dimensions of the institution- and individual-level data reporting (p < 0.05). Methodological rigor obtained the lowest score. Regarding the strategies to facilitate the medicine prescribing data reporting, over 80 % of general practitioners selected the items that disclose process measures and not outcome measures, as well as educate patients on data interpretation.ConclusionThe perceptions of general practitioners between institution- and individual-level data reporting have no significant difference. General practitioners place their utmost concern on public reporting on the methodological rigor. Processing measures and patient education to improve the efficiency of public reporting require substantial attention.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1893-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…Performance reporting and transparency are often regarded as critical components of transforming healthcare. However, it is not clear whether public transparency is more effective than internal publishing of performance data with regard to engaging physicians in quality-and-safety activities 22 23. This is an important area for future exploration, particularly as these data indicate some contention over this issue.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%