Grading the Graders
How Hospitals in California and New York Perceive and Interpret Their Report Cards
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9105001 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Patrick S Romano (0000-0001-6749-3979, University of California System, corresponding author), Julie A Rainwater, Julie Rainwater, Deirdre Antonius |
| Year | 1999 |
| Volume | 37 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 295-305 |
| Publication date | 1999-03-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Medical Care (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0025-7079 • E-ISSN: 1537-1948 |
| Publisher | Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1097/00005650-199903000-00009 |
| PMID | 10098573 |
| OpenAlex | W2320791885 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 7 |
| References cited | 16 |
BACKGROUND: Concerns about quality of care are increasing as hospitals struggle to lower costs. Hospital report cards are controversial, but little is known about their impact. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether recent hospital report cards are viewed more favorably than pioneering federal efforts; whether a report based on clinical data is viewed more favorably than one based on administrative data; and whether attitudes toward report cards are related to hospital characteristics. DESIGN: Mailed survey of chief executives at 374 California hospitals and 31 New York hospitals listed in report cards on myocardial infarction and coronary bypass mortality. SUBJECTS: Two-hundred-and-seventy-four hospitals in California (73.3% response) and 27 in New York (87.1% response). California hospitals were categorized on ownership, size, occupancy, risk-adjusted mortality, teaching status, patient volume, and surgical capability. MEASURES: Number of hospital units that received or discussed the report card, ratings of its quality, perceptions of its usefulness, and knowledge of its methods. RESULTS: In both states, report cards were widely disseminated within hospitals. The mean quality rating was higher (P = 0.0074) in New York than in California; New York respondents appeared to be more knowledgeable about key methods. One or more hospital characteristics was associated with each outcome measure. Leaders at high-mortality hospitals were especially critical and did not find the report useful, despite limited understanding of its methods. CONCLUSIONS: Recent hospital report cards were rated better than pioneering federal efforts. A report based on clinical data was rated better, understood better, and disseminated more often to key staff than one that was based on administrative data. Barriers to constructive use of outcomes data persist, especially at high mortality hospitals
Biology · Grading (engineering) · Medical physics · Computer Science · Healthcare Quality and Management · Medicine · Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare · Primary Care and Health Outcomes
The Public Release of Performance Data
Improving the Quality of Health Care in the United Kingdom and the United States
Is More Information Better? The Effects of “Report Cards” on Health Care Providers
Using Performance Measurement to Drive Improvement
Factoring Socioeconomic Status Into Cardiac Performance Profiling for Hospitals
A Remarkable Legacy of Science
Do Well-Publicized Risk-Adjusted Outcomes Reports Affect Hospital Volume
| Citations per year | 0.27 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2000 - 2004 (5) |
| Highly cited | No |