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.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review synthesizes what is known about the effective presentation of health care performance information for consumer decision making.
METHODS: Six databases were searched for articles published in English between September 2003 and April 2014. Experimental studies comparing consumers' responses to performance information when one or more presentation feature was altered were included. A thematic analysis was performed and practical guidelines derived.
RESULTS: All 31 articles retained, the majority which tested responses to various presentations of health care cost and/or quality information, found that consumers better understand and make more informed choices when the information display is less complex. Simplification can be achieved by reducing the quantity of choices, displaying results in a positive direction, using non-technical language and evaluative elements, and situating results in common contexts.
CONCLUSION: While findings do not offer a prescriptive design, this synthesis informs approaches to enhancing the presentation of health care performance information and areas that merit additional research.
PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Guidelines derived from these results can be used to enhance health care performance reports for consumer decision making including using recognizable, evaluative graphics and customizable formats, limiting the amount of information presented, and testing presentation formats prior to use.
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.
Patient experience is one of key domains of value-based purchasing that can serve as a measure of quality and be used to improve the delivery of health services. The aims of this study are to explore patient perceptions of quality of health care and to understand how perceptions may differ by settings and condition. A systematic review of multiple databases was conducted for studies targeting patient perceptions of quality of care. Two reviewers screened and extracted data independently. Data synthesis was performed following a meta-narrative approach. A total of 36 studies were included that identified 10 quality dimensions perceived by patients: communication, access, shared decision making, provider knowledge and skills, physical environment, patient education, electronic medical record, pain control, discharge process, and preventive services. These dimensions can be used in planning and evaluating health care delivery. Future research should evaluate the effect of interventions targeting patient experience on patient outcomes.
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.
User choice and personalisation have been at the centre of health and social care policies in many countries. Exercising choice can be especially challenging for people with long-term conditions (LTC) or disabilities. Information about the quality, cost and availability of services is central to user choice. This study used systematic review methods to synthesise evidence in three main areas: (i) how people with LTC or disabilities and their family carers find and access information about the quality of services; (ii) how quality information is used in decision-making; and (iii) what type of quality information is most useful. Quality information was defined broadly and could include formal quality reports (e.g. inspection reports, report cards, etc.), information about the characteristics of a service or provider (e.g. number and qualifications of staff, facilities, etc.) and informal reports about quality (e.g. personal experience, etc.). Literature searches were carried out using electronic databases in January 2012. Thirteen papers reporting findings from empirical studies published between 2001 and 2012 were included in the review. The majority of papers (n = 9) had a qualitative design. The analysis highlighted the use of multiple sources of information in decision-making about services and in particular the importance of informal sources and extended social networks in accessing information. There is limited awareness and use of 'official' and online information sources. Service users or family carers place greater emphasis on general information and structural indicators. Clinical or quality-of-life outcomes are often difficult to interpret and apply. Trust emerged a key issue in relation to quality information. Experiential and subjective information is highly valued and trusted. Various barriers to the effective use of quality information in making choices about services are identified. Implications for policy and future research are discussed.
BACKGROUND: Hospitals report cards have been put in place within the past few years to increase the amount of publicly reported quality information in Germany.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the potential of German hospital report cards to improve quality of care.
METHODS: First, a systematic Internet search aimed at identifying available report cards was conducted. Second, cross-sectional data (August/September 2013) were analyzed with respect to awareness, comprehension, and impact of report cards by using descriptive analysis and binary multivariate logistic regression models.
RESULTS: Hospital report cards (N=62) have become broadly available. However, awareness remains low, about one third (35.6%) of all respondents (N=2027) were aware of German hospital report card. Regarding comprehensibility, in 60.7% of all experiments (N=6081), respondents selected the hospital with the lowest risk-adjusted mortality; significant differences could be determined between the report cards (p<.001) with scores ranging from 27.5% to 77.2%. Binary multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed different significant respondent-related predictors on each report card. Finally, an impact on hospital choice making was determined.
CONCLUSIONS: To increase the potential of hospital report cards, health policy makers should promote the availability of report cards. In addition, the comprehensibility of German hospital report cards cannot be regarded as satisfying and should be enhanced in the future.
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.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were to identify factors that influence implementation of hospital accreditation programmes and to assess the impact of the accreditation process on quality improvement in public hospitals.
DATA SOURCES: Two electronic databases, Medline (OvidSP) and PubMed, were systematically searched.
STUDY SELECTION: "Public hospital", "hospital accreditation", and "quality improvement" were used as the search terms. A total of 348 citations were initially identified. After critical appraisal and study selection, 26 articles were included in the review.
DATA EXTRACTION: The data were extracted and analysed using a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Increased staff engagement and communication, multidisciplinary team building, positive changes in organisational culture, and enhanced leadership and staff awareness of continuous quality improvement were identified as strengths. Weaknesses included organisational resistance to change, increased staff workload, lack of awareness about continuous quality improvement, insufficient staff training and support for continuous quality improvement, lack of applicable accreditation standards for local use, and lack of performance outcome measures. Opportunities included identification of improvement areas, enhanced patient safety, additional funding, public recognition, and market advantage. Threats included opportunistic behaviours, funding cuts, lack of incentives for participation, and a regulatory approach to mandatory participation.
CONCLUSIONS: By relating the findings to the operational issues of accreditation, this review discussed the implications for successful implementation and how accreditation may drive quality improvement. These findings have implications for various stakeholders (government, the public, patients and health care providers), when it comes to embarking on accreditation exercises.
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.
