Sisk J E, Dougherty D M, Ehrenhaft P M, Ruby G, Mitchner B A
Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC 20510-8025.
Inquiry. 1990 Fall;27(3):263-72.
In recent years support for better public information on the quality of medical care has intensified, while the validity of the information available has been questioned. To address these concerns, we evaluated the reliability and validity of using each of 10 possible indicators to measure hospital and physician quality and the feasibility of providing the results to the public. We found that several of these indicators can provide useful, though not definitive, information on quality. In general, we advise consumers to combine information from more than one year and from more than one indicator to increase the likelihood that the relationship is accurate. For the provision of information on quality to achieve its potential, certain deficiencies in quality assessment must be addressed by both public and private policies. Strengthening the validity of quality assessments is vital to improve their credibility and to minimize negative effects on medical providers, individual consumers, and health care programs.
近年来，要求提供更多有关医疗质量的公共信息的呼声日益高涨，而现有信息的有效性却受到质疑。为了解决这些问题，我们评估了使用10种可能的指标来衡量医院和医生质量的可靠性和有效性，以及向公众提供结果的可行性。我们发现，其中一些指标可以提供有关质量的有用信息，尽管不是决定性的。一般来说，我们建议消费者综合来自一年以上且多个指标的信息，以提高关系准确的可能性。为了使质量信息的提供发挥其潜力，公共政策和私人政策都必须解决质量评估中的某些缺陷。加强质量评估的有效性对于提高其可信度以及尽量减少对医疗服务提供者、个体消费者和医疗保健项目的负面影响至关重要。
