BACKGROUND: It is becoming increasingly common to publish information about the quality and performance of healthcare organisations and individual professionals. However, we do not know how this information is used, or the extent to which such reporting leads to quality improvement by changing the behaviour of healthcare consumers, providers, and purchasers.
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effects of public release of performance data, from any source, on changing the healthcare utilisation behaviour of healthcare consumers, providers (professionals and organisations), and purchasers of care. In addition, we sought to estimate the effects on healthcare provider performance, patient outcomes, and staff morale.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers on 26 June 2017. We checked reference lists of all included studies to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised or non-randomised trials, interrupted time series, and controlled before-after studies of the effects of publicly releasing data regarding any aspect of the performance of healthcare organisations or professionals. Each study had to report at least one main outcome related to selecting or changing care.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies for eligibility and extracted data. For each study, we extracted data about the target groups (healthcare consumers, healthcare providers, and healthcare purchasers), performance data, main outcomes (choice of healthcare provider, and improvement by means of changes in care), and other outcomes (awareness, attitude, knowledge of performance data, and costs). Given the substantial degree of clinical and methodological heterogeneity between the studies, we presented the findings for each policy in a structured format, but did not undertake a meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 studies that analysed data from more than 7570 providers (e.g. professionals and organisations), and a further 3,333,386 clinical encounters (e.g. patient referrals, prescriptions). We included four cluster-randomised trials, one cluster-non-randomised trial, six interrupted time series studies, and one controlled before-after study. Eight studies were undertaken in the USA, and one each in Canada, Korea, China, and The Netherlands. Four studies examined the effect of public release of performance data on consumer healthcare choices, and four on improving quality.There was low-certainty evidence that public release of performance data may make little or no difference to long-term healthcare utilisation by healthcare consumers (3 studies; 18,294 insurance plan beneficiaries), or providers (4 studies; 3,000,000 births, and 67 healthcare providers), or to provider performance (1 study; 82 providers). However, there was also low-certainty evidence to suggest that public release of performance data may slightly improve some patient outcomes (5 studies, 315,092 hospitalisations, and 7502 providers). There was low-certainty evidence from a single study to suggest that public release of performance data may have differential effects on disadvantaged populations. There was no evidence about effects on healthcare utilisation decisions by purchasers, or adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The existing evidence base is inadequate to directly inform policy and practice. Further studies should consider whether public release of performance data can improve patient outcomes, as well as healthcare processes.
BACKGROUND: To assess both qualitatively and quantitatively the impact of Public Reporting (PR) on clinical outcomes, we carried out a systematic review of published studies on this topic.
METHODS: Pubmed, Web of Science and SCOPUS databases were searched to identify studies published from 1991 to 2014 that investigated the relationship between PR and clinical outcomes. Studies were considered eligible if they investigated the relationship between PR and clinical outcomes and comprehensively described the PR mechanism and the study design adopted. Among the clinical outcomes identified, meta-analysis was performed for overall mortality rate which quantitative data were exhaustively reported in a sufficient number of studies. Two reviewers conducted all data extraction independently and disagreements were resolved through discussion. The same reviewers evaluated also the quality of the studies using a GRADE approach.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were included. Mainly, the effect of PR on clinical outcomes was positive. Meta-analysis regarding overall mortality included, in a context of high heterogeneity, 10 studies with a total of 1,840,401 experimental events and 3,670,446 control events and resulted in a RR of 0.85 (95 % CI, 0.79-0.92).
CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of PR programs at different levels of the healthcare sector is a challenging but rewarding public health strategy. Existing research covering different clinical outcomes supports the idea that PR could, in fact, stimulate providers to improve healthcare quality.
Many health insurance systems apply managed competition principles to control costs and quality of health care. Besides other factors, managed competition relies on a sufficient price-elastic demand. This paper presents a systematic review of empirical studies on price elasticity of demand for health insurance. The objective was to identify the differing international ranges of price elasticity and to find socio-economic as well as setting-oriented factors that influence price elasticity. Relevant literature for the topic was identified through a two-step identification process including a systematic search in appropriate databases and further searches within the references of the results. A total of 45 studies from countries such as the USA, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland were found. Clear differences in price elasticity by countries were identified. While empirical studies showed a range between -0.2 and -1.0 for optional primary health insurance in the US, higher price elasticities between -0.6 and -4.2 for Germany and around -2 for Switzerland were calculated for mandatory primary health insurance. Dutch studies found price elasticities below -0.5. In consideration of all relevant studies, age and poorer health status were identified to decrease price elasticity. Other socio-economic factors had an unclear impact or too limited evidence. Premium level, range of premiums, homogeneity of benefits/coverage and degree of forced decision were found to have a major influence on price elasticity in their settings. Further influence was found from supplementary insurance and premium-dependent employer contribution.
OBJECTIVE:: To systematically review studies evaluating the influence of surgical experience on individual performance.
BACKGROUND:: Experience, measured in case volume or years of practice, is recognized as a key driver of individual surgical performance, giving rise to a learning curve. However, this topic has not been reviewed at the cross-specialty level.
METHODS:: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched (from inception to February 2013). Two reviewers independently reviewed citations using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Ninety-one data points per study were extracted.
RESULTS:: The search strategy yielded 6950 citations. Fifty-seven studies were eligible, including 1,061,913 cases and 35 procedure types, performed by 17,912 surgeons. Forty-five studies monitored case volume, and 6 studies measured experience as both case volume and years of practice. Of these 51 studies, 44 found that increased case volume was associated with significantly improved health outcomes. Several studies noted a plateau phase or maturation in the surgical learning curve. Acquisition of this phase was procedure specific and outcome specific, ranging from 25 to 750 procedures. Twelve studies assessed the impact of years of surgical practice, 11 of which found that increased years of experience was associated with significantly improved health outcomes. Two studies noted a plateau phase, where increases in years of experience were no longer associated with improvements in operative outcomes. Three studies identified performance deterioration after the plateau phase.
CONCLUSIONS:: Increasing surgical case volume and years of practice are associated with improved performance, in a procedure-specific manner. Performance may deteriorate toward the end of a surgeon's career.
OBJECTIVE: Recent US healthcare reforms aim to improve quality and access. We synthesized evidence assessing the impact that public reporting (PR), which will be extended to the outpatient setting, has on patient outcomes and disparities. METHODS: A systematic review using PRISMA guidelines identified studies addressing the impact of PR on patient outcomes and disparities. RESULTS: Of the 1970 publications identified, 25 were relevant, spanning hospitals (16), nursing homes (5), emergency rooms (1), health plans (2), and home health agencies (1). Evidence of effect on patient outcomes was mixed, with 6 studies reporting a favorable effect, 9 a mixed effect, 9 a null effect, and 1 a negative effect. One study found a mixed effect of PR on disparities. CONCLUSION: The evidence of the impact of PR on patient outcomes is lacking, with limited evidence that PR has a favorable effect on outcomes in nursing homes. There is little evidence supporting claims that PR will have an impact on disparities or in the outpatient setting. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Health systems should collect information on patient-relevant outcomes. The lack of evidence does not necessarily imply a lack of effect, and a research gap exists regarding patient-relevant outcomes and PR.
Recent studies have highlighted the importance of management in the health care sector. Positive correlations have been found between clinical and economic performance. Although there is still controversy regarding what kind of management and which managers should lead health care organizations and health systems, we now have interesting evidence to analyze. Starting with a systematic review of the literature, this article presents and discusses the streams of knowledge regarding how management can influence the quality and sustainability of health systems and organizations. Through the analysis of 37 studies, we found that the performance of health care systems and organizations seems to be correlated with management practices, leadership, manager characteristics, and cultural attributes that are associated with managerial values and approaches. There is also evidence that health care organizations run by doctors perform better than others. Finally, we provide a roadmap that indicates how the relationship between the management and performance of health systems and organizations can be further and more effectively investigated.
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of public reporting of health care quality information as a quality improvement strategy. We sought to determine if public reporting results in improvements in health care delivery and patient outcomes. We also considered whether public reporting affects the behavior of patients or of health care providers. Finally we assessed whether the characteristics of the public reports and the context affect the impact of public reports.
DATA SOURCES: Articles available between 1980 and 2011 were identified through searches of the following bibliographical databases: MEDLINE®, Embase, EconLit, PsychINFO, Business Source Premier, CINAHL, PAIS, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EPOC Register of Studies, DARE, NHS EED, HEED, NYAM Grey Literature Report database, and other sources (experts, reference lists, and gray literature).
REVIEW METHODS: We screened citations based on inclusion and exclusion criteria developed based on our definition of public reporting. We initially did not exclude any studies based on study design. Of the 11,809 citations identified through title and abstract triage, we screened and reviewed 1,632 articles. A total of 97 quantitative and 101 qualitative studies were included, abstracted, entered into tables, and evaluated. The heterogeneity of outcomes as well as methods prohibited formal quantitative synthesis. Systematic reviews were used to identify studies, but their conclusions were not incorporated into this review.
RESULTS: For most of the outcomes, the strength of the evidence available to assess the impact of public reporting was moderate. This was due in part to the methodological challenges researchers face in designing and conducting research on the impact of population-level interventions. Public reporting is associated with improvement in health care performance measures such as those included in Nursing Home Compare. Almost all identified studies found no evidence or only weak evidence that public reporting affects the selection of health care providers by patients or their representatives. Studies of health care providers' response to public reports suggest they engage in activities to improve quality when performance data are made public. Characteristics of public reports and the context, which are likely to be important when considering the diffusion of quality improvement activities, were rarely studied or even described.
CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneity of the outcomes and the moderate strength of evidence for most outcomes make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. However, some observations were supported by existing research. Public reporting is more likely to be associated with changes in health care provider behaviors than with selection of health services providers by patients or families. Quality measures that are publicly reported improve over time. Although the potential for harms is frequently cited by commentators and critics of public reporting, the amount of research on harms is limited and most studies do not confirm the potential harm.
CONTEXT: The mixed results of success among QI initiatives may be due to differences in the context of these initiatives.
METHODS: The business and health care literature was systematically reviewed to identify contextual factors that might influence QI success; to categorize, summarize, and synthesize these factors; and to understand the current stage of development of this research field.
FINDINGS: Forty-seven articles were included in the final review. Consistent with current theories of implementation and organization change, leadership from top management, organizational culture, data infrastructure and information systems, and years involved in QI were suggested as important to QI success. Other potentially important factors identified in this review included: physician involvement in QI, microsystem motivation to change, resources for QI, and QI team leadership. Key limitations in the existing literature were the lack of a practical conceptual model, the lack of clear definitions of contextual factors, and the lack of well-specified measures.
CONCLUSIONS: Several contextual factors were shown to be important to QI success, although the current body of literature lacks adequate definitions and is characterized by considerable variability in how contextual factors are measured across studies. Future research should focus on identifying and developing measures of context tied to a conceptual model that examines context across all levels of the health care system and explores the relationships among various aspects of context.
Pay-for-performance and public reporting programs may have a neutral, narrowing, or widening effect on racial disparities in health care. The authors begin this article by suggesting that certain characteristics of these programs may affect disparities. They then present results from a systematic review of the literature on the effects of performance incentive programs on racial disparities in health care. The review revealed that only one empirical study provided data on this issue: It showed that a major public reporting program increased disparities in coronary artery bypass graft rates. The authors then present the results of interviews with leaders of 15 major performance incentive programs in the United States. The interviews indicated that current programs are not designed to reduce disparities and often lack characteristics that may be important in reducing disparities. The article concludes with program leaders' recommendations on how performance incentive programs could be designed to reduce disparities.
It is becoming increasingly common to publish information about the quality and performance of healthcare organisations and individual professionals. However, we do not know how this information is used, or the extent to which such reporting leads to quality improvement by changing the behaviour of healthcare consumers, providers, and purchasers.
OBJECTIVES:
To estimate the effects of public release of performance data, from any source, on changing the healthcare utilisation behaviour of healthcare consumers, providers (professionals and organisations), and purchasers of care. In addition, we sought to estimate the effects on healthcare provider performance, patient outcomes, and staff morale.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers on 26 June 2017. We checked reference lists of all included studies to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We searched for randomised or non-randomised trials, interrupted time series, and controlled before-after studies of the effects of publicly releasing data regarding any aspect of the performance of healthcare organisations or professionals. Each study had to report at least one main outcome related to selecting or changing care.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Two review authors independently screened studies for eligibility and extracted data. For each study, we extracted data about the target groups (healthcare consumers, healthcare providers, and healthcare purchasers), performance data, main outcomes (choice of healthcare provider, and improvement by means of changes in care), and other outcomes (awareness, attitude, knowledge of performance data, and costs). Given the substantial degree of clinical and methodological heterogeneity between the studies, we presented the findings for each policy in a structured format, but did not undertake a meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS:
We included 12 studies that analysed data from more than 7570 providers (e.g. professionals and organisations), and a further 3,333,386 clinical encounters (e.g. patient referrals, prescriptions). We included four cluster-randomised trials, one cluster-non-randomised trial, six interrupted time series studies, and one controlled before-after study. Eight studies were undertaken in the USA, and one each in Canada, Korea, China, and The Netherlands. Four studies examined the effect of public release of performance data on consumer healthcare choices, and four on improving quality.There was low-certainty evidence that public release of performance data may make little or no difference to long-term healthcare utilisation by healthcare consumers (3 studies; 18,294 insurance plan beneficiaries), or providers (4 studies; 3,000,000 births, and 67 healthcare providers), or to provider performance (1 study; 82 providers). However, there was also low-certainty evidence to suggest that public release of performance data may slightly improve some patient outcomes (5 studies, 315,092 hospitalisations, and 7502 providers). There was low-certainty evidence from a single study to suggest that public release of performance data may have differential effects on disadvantaged populations. There was no evidence about effects on healthcare utilisation decisions by purchasers, or adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
The existing evidence base is inadequate to directly inform policy and practice. Further studies should consider whether public release of performance data can improve patient outcomes, as well as healthcare processes.
