• Medical care · Mar 1999

    Grading the graders: how hospitals in California and New York perceive and interpret their report cards.

    • P S Romano, J A Rainwater, and D Antonius.
    • Department of Internal Medicine, and the Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento 95817, USA. psromano@ucdavis.edu
    • Med Care. 1999 Mar 1;37(3):295-305.

    BackgroundConcerns about quality of care are increasing as hospitals struggle to lower costs. Hospital report cards are controversial, but little is known about their impact.ObjectivesTo 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.DesignMailed survey of chief executives at 374 California hospitals and 31 New York hospitals listed in report cards on myocardial infarction and coronary bypass mortality.SubjectsTwo-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.MeasuresNumber of hospital units that received or discussed the report card, ratings of its quality, perceptions of its usefulness, and knowledge of its methods.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsRecent 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.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.