NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.
Structured Abstract
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.
Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Technical Expert Panel
- Peer Reviewers
- Executive Summary
- Introduction
- Methods
- Results
- Discussion
- References
- Abbreviations and Acronyms
- Appendix A Literature Search Databases and Strings
- Appendix B Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
- Appendix C Included and Excluded Studies
- Appendix D Study Design Terminology
- Appendix E Description of Public Reports From the Included Studies
- Appendix F Method for Quality Assessment of Individual Quantitative Studies
- Appendix G Quality Assessment of Individual Quantitative Studies
- Appendix H Hospitals: Quantitative Evidence
- Appendix I Hospitals: Qualitative Evidence
- Appendix J Individual Providers: Quantitative Evidence
- Appendix K Individual Providers: Qualitative Evidence
- Appendix L Health Plans: Quantitative Evidence
- Appendix M Health Plans: Qualitative Evidence
- Appendix N Long-Term Care: Quantitative Evidence
- Appendix O Long-Term Care: Qualitative Evidence
- Appendix P Strength of Evidence
Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services1, Contract No. 290-2007-10057-I, Prepared by: Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center, Portland, OR
Suggested citation:
Totten AM, Wagner J, Tiwari A, O’Haire C, Griffin J, Walker M. Public Reporting as a Quality Improvement Strategy. Closing the Quality Gap: Revisiting the State of the Science. Evidence Report No. 208. (Prepared by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10057-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 12-E011-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. July 2012. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.
This report is based on research conducted by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-2007-10057-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients.
This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.
None of the investigators have an affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.
- 1
540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; www
.ahrq.gov
- Beyond the black stump: rapid reviews of health research issues affecting regional, rural and remote Australia.[Med J Aust. 2020]Beyond the black stump: rapid reviews of health research issues affecting regional, rural and remote Australia.Osborne SR, Alston LV, Bolton KA, Whelan J, Reeve E, Wong Shee A, Browne J, Walker T, Versace VL, Allender S, et al. Med J Aust. 2020 Dec; 213 Suppl 11:S3-S32.e1.
- The future of Cochrane Neonatal.[Early Hum Dev. 2020]The future of Cochrane Neonatal.Soll RF, Ovelman C, McGuire W. Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov; 150:105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
- Closing the quality gap: revisiting the state of the science (vol. 8: improving health care and palliative care for advanced and serious illness).[Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full ...]Closing the quality gap: revisiting the state of the science (vol. 8: improving health care and palliative care for advanced and serious illness).Dy SM, Aslakson R, Wilson RF, Fawole OA, Lau BD, Martinez KA, Vollenweider D, Apostol C, Bass EB. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2012 Oct; (208.8):1-249.
- Review Housing improvements for health and associated socio-economic outcomes.[Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013]Review Housing improvements for health and associated socio-economic outcomes.Thomson H, Thomas S, Sellstrom E, Petticrew M. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Feb 28; (2):CD008657. Epub 2013 Feb 28.
- Review [Volume and health outcomes: evidence from systematic reviews and from evaluation of Italian hospital data].[Epidemiol Prev. 2013]Review [Volume and health outcomes: evidence from systematic reviews and from evaluation of Italian hospital data].Amato L, Colais P, Davoli M, Ferroni E, Fusco D, Minozzi S, Moirano F, Sciattella P, Vecchi S, Ventura M, et al. Epidemiol Prev. 2013 Mar-Jun; 37(2-3 Suppl 2):1-100.
- Closing the Quality Gap: Revisiting the State of the Science (Vol. 5: Public Rep...Closing the Quality Gap: Revisiting the State of the Science (Vol. 5: Public Reporting as a Quality Improvement Strategy)
- Executive Summary - Closing the Quality Gap: Revisiting the State of the Science...Executive Summary - Closing the Quality Gap: Revisiting the State of the Science (Vol. 4: Medication Adherence Interventions: Comparative Effectiveness)
- July 2016 Addendum - Diagnosis and Treatment of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chroni...July 2016 Addendum - Diagnosis and Treatment of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
- Executive Summary - Diagnosis and Treatment of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic...Executive Summary - Diagnosis and Treatment of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
- Vitamin D and Calcium: A Systematic Review of Health Outcomes (Update)Vitamin D and Calcium: A Systematic Review of Health Outcomes (Update)
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...