Public release of performance data and quality improvement: internal responses to external data by US health care providers

Health policy in many countries emphasises the public release of comparative data on clinical performance as one way of improving the quality of health care. Evidence to date is that it is health care providers (hospitals and the staff within them) that are most likely to respond to such data, yet little is known about how health care providers view and use these data. Case studies of six US hospitals were studied (two academic medical centres, two private not-for-profit medical centres, a group model health maintenance organisation hospital, and an inner city public provider “safety net” hospital) using semi-structured interviews followed by a broad thematic analysis located within an interpretive paradigm. Within these settings, 35 interviews were held with 31 individuals (chief executive officer, chief of staff, chief of cardiology, senior nurse, senior quality managers, and front line staff). The results showed that key stakeholders in these providers were often (but not always) antipathetic towards publicly released comparative data. Such data were seen as lacking in legitimacy and their meanings were disputed. Nonetheless, the public nature of these data did lead to some actions in response, more so when the data showed that local performance was poor. There was little integration between internal and external data systems. These findings suggest that the public release of comparative data may help to ensure that greater attention is paid to the quality agenda within health care providers, but greater efforts are needed both to develop internal systems of quality improvement and to integrate these more effectively with external data systems.

[1]  N. Black High-quality clinical databases: breaking down barriers , 1999, The Lancet.

[2]  T. Brennan The role of regulation in quality improvement. , 1998, The Milbank quarterly.

[3]  J. Hibbard,et al.  Comprehension of Quality Care Indicators: Differences Among Privately Insured, Publicly Insured, and Uninsured , 1996, Health care financing review.

[4]  P. Romano,et al.  The California Hospital Outcomes Project: how useful is California's report card for quality improvement? , 1998, The Joint Commission journal on quality improvement.

[5]  C. Vincent,et al.  Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  M. Marshall,et al.  Public disclosure of performance data: does the public get what the public wants? , 1999, The Lancet.

[7]  P. Romano,et al.  Grading the graders: how hospitals in California and New York perceive and interpret their report cards. , 1999, Medical care.

[8]  Karen Locke Grounded Theory in Management Research , 2000 .

[9]  Marilyn Sue Bogner,et al.  Human Error in Medicine , 1995 .

[10]  M. Chassin,et al.  The urgent need to improve health care quality. Institute of Medicine National Roundtable on Health Care Quality. , 1998, JAMA.

[11]  Nan D. Hunter Quality first: better health care for all Americans. , 1998, The Kansas nurse.

[12]  S. Engelmann,et al.  Can Medicare beneficiaries make informed choices? , 1998, Health affairs.

[13]  J. Hibbard,et al.  Will quality report cards help consumers? , 1997, Health affairs.

[14]  V. Tamboli Health care in the United States. , 1991, Health care management review.

[15]  A M Epstein,et al.  Use of public performance reports: a survey of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. , 1998, JAMA.

[16]  L L Leape,et al.  Safe health care: are we up to it? , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[17]  N. Denzin,et al.  Handbook of Qualitative Research , 1994 .

[18]  Harvey Goldstein,et al.  League Tables and Their Limitations: Statistical Issues in Comparisons of Institutional Performance , 1996 .

[19]  A M Epstein,et al.  Influence of cardiac-surgery performance reports on referral practices and access to care. A survey of cardiovascular specialists. , 1996, The New England journal of medicine.

[20]  R H Brook,et al.  The public release of performance data: what do we expect to gain? A review of the evidence. , 2000, JAMA.

[21]  R. Mannion,et al.  Assessing the performance of NHS hospital trusts: the role of 'hard' and 'soft' information. , 1999, Health policy.

[22]  E. McGlynn,et al.  How good is the quality of health care in the United States? , 1998, The Milbank quarterly.

[23]  S Nutley,et al.  League Tables for Performance Improvement in Health Care , 1998, Journal of health services research & policy.

[24]  Martin Marshall,et al.  Public Disclosure of Performance Data , 2000 .

[25]  L I Iezzoni,et al.  The risks of risk adjustment. , 1997, JAMA.

[26]  J. Hibbard,et al.  Choosing a health plan: do large employers use the data? , 1997, Health affairs.

[27]  D. Woods Demanding Medical Excellence , 1999, BMJ.

[28]  H. Davies,et al.  Trust in performance indicators? , 1998, Quality in health care : QHC.

[29]  Lois Quam,et al.  The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification , 1998 .

[30]  L. Kohn,et al.  To Err Is Human : Building a Safer Health System , 2007 .

[31]  R. Stake The art of case study research , 1995 .

[32]  A. Parry Handbook of Qualitative Research , 2002 .

[33]  H. Luft,et al.  The California Hospital Outcomes Project: using administrative data to compare hospital performance. , 1995, The Joint Commission journal on quality improvement.

[34]  H. Davies,et al.  Interpreting health outcomes. , 1997, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[35]  Peter C Smith,et al.  On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector , 1995 .

[36]  T. McBride,et al.  Volatility in Medicare AAPCC rates: 1990-1997. , 1997, Health affairs.

[37]  Colin Scott,et al.  Regulation Inside Government , 1999 .

[38]  H. Davies,et al.  UK and US health-care systems: divided by more than a common language , 2000, The Lancet.

[39]  Michael Quinn Patton,et al.  How to use qualitative methods in evaluation , 1987 .