Division of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware Street SE, MMC 729, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
J Gen Intern Med. 2010 Nov;25(11):1235-41. doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1438-2. Epub 2010 Jul 13.
Public reporting of provider performance can assist consumers in their choice of providers and stimulate providers to improve quality. Reporting of quality measures is supported by advocates of health care reform across the political spectrum.
To assess the availability, credibility and applicability of existing public reports of hospital and physician quality, with comparisons across geographic areas.
Information pertaining to 263 public reports in 21 geographic areas was collected through reviews of websites and telephone and in-person interviews, and used to construct indicators of public reporting status. Interview data collected in 14 of these areas were used to assess recent changes in reporting and their implications.
Interviewees included staff of state and local associations, health plan representatives and leaders of local health care alliances.
There were more reports of hospital performance (161) than of physician performance (103) in the study areas. More reports included measures derived from claims data (mean, 7.2 hospital reports and 3.3 physician reports per area) than from medical records data. Typically, reports on physician performance contained measures of chronic illness treatment constructed at the medical group level, with diabetes measures the most common (mean number per non-health plan report, 2.3). Patient experience measures were available in more hospital reports (mean number of reports, 1.2) than physician reports (mean, 0.7). Despite the availability of national hospital reports and reports sponsored by national health plans, from a consumer standpoint the status of public reporting depended greatly on where one lived and health plan membership.
Current public reports, and especially reports of physician quality of care, have significant limitations from both consumer and provider perspectives. The present approach to reporting is being challenged by the development of new information sources for consumers, and consumer and provider demands for more current information.
公开报告供应商的绩效可以帮助消费者选择供应商,并激励供应商提高质量。医疗保健改革的倡导者在整个政治领域都支持报告质量措施。
评估现有的医院和医生质量公共报告的可用性、可信度和适用性,并进行跨地区比较。
通过对网站的审查、电话和面对面的访谈,收集了 21 个地理区域的 263 份公共报告的信息,并使用这些信息构建了公共报告状况的指标。在这 14 个地区中的采访数据用于评估报告的最新变化及其影响。
受访者包括州和地方协会的工作人员、健康计划代表和当地医疗保健联盟的领导人。
在研究区域中,有关医院绩效的报告(161 份)多于医生绩效的报告(103 份)。更多的报告包含来自索赔数据的指标(平均每个地区有 7.2 份医院报告和 3.3 份医生报告)而不是来自病历数据的指标。通常,医生绩效报告包含在医疗集团层面构建的慢性病治疗措施,其中糖尿病措施最常见(每份非健康计划报告的平均数量为 2.3)。患者体验措施在更多的医院报告中可用(每份报告的平均数量为 1.2)而不是医生报告(平均数量为 0.7)。尽管有全国性的医院报告和全国性健康计划赞助的报告,但从消费者的角度来看,公共报告的状况在很大程度上取决于居住地和健康计划的成员身份。
从消费者和提供者的角度来看,当前的公共报告,尤其是医生医疗质量报告,存在重大的局限性。报告的现有方法正受到为消费者开发新信息源以及消费者和提供者对更及时信息的需求的挑战。