The impact of the Internet on quality measurement.

Consumers are eager for information about health. However, their use of such data has been limited to date. When consumers do consider data in making health care choices, they rely more on word-of-mouth reputation than on traditional quality measures, although this information has not necessarily been readily accessible. The Internet changes the exercise of quality measurement in several ways. First, quality information--including reputation--will be more readily available. Second, consumers will increasingly use it. Third, the Internet provides a low-cost, standard platform that will make it vastly easier for providers to collect quality information and pass it on to others. However, major barriers still stand in the way of public access to quality information on the Internet as well as of having that access actually improve patients' care.

[1]  A. Gawande,et al.  Does dissatisfaction with health plans stem from having no choices? , 1998, Health affairs.

[2]  Harlan M. Krumholz,et al.  Do “America's Best Hospitals” Perform Better for Acute Myocardial Infarction? , 1999 .

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

[4]  T Ferguson,et al.  Health online and the empowered medical consumer. , 1997, The Joint Commission journal on quality improvement.

[5]  S. McRoy,et al.  Interactive computerized health care education. , 1998, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[6]  L. Gostin,et al.  Legal issues concerning electronic health information: privacy, quality, and liability. , 1999, JAMA.

[7]  W. Manning,et al.  The Unreliability of Individual Physician “Report Cards” for Assessing the Costs and Quality of Care of a Chronic Disease , 2000 .

[8]  M. Morrisey,et al.  Death and reputation: how consumers acted upon HCFA mortality information. , 1997, Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing.

[9]  Jonathan M. Teich,et al.  Identifying Adverse Drug Events: Development of a Computerized Monitor and Comparison to Chart Review. , 1996 .

[10]  Jonathan M. Teich,et al.  Research Paper: Identifying Adverse Drug Events: Development of a Computer-based Monitor and Comparison with Chart Review and Stimulated Voluntary Report , 1998, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[11]  W. Ghali,et al.  Statewide quality improvement initiatives and mortality after cardiac surgery. , 1997, JAMA.

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

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

[14]  N. Wintfeld,et al.  In search of America's best hospitals. The promise and reality of quality assessment. , 1997 .

[15]  T A Brennan,et al.  The Institute of Medicine report on medical errors--could it do harm? , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  E L Hannan,et al.  Improving the outcomes of coronary artery bypass surgery in New York State. , 1994, JAMA.

[17]  S. Robinson,et al.  Understanding the quality challenge for health consumers: the Kaiser/AHCPR Survey. , 1997, The Joint Commission journal on quality improvement.

[18]  A. Donabedian,et al.  The quality of care. How can it be assessed? , 1988, JAMA.

[19]  J. Thompson,et al.  The NCQA's quality compass: evaluating managed care in the United States. , 1998, Health affairs.

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

[21]  C. Salisbury.  How do people choose their doctor? , 1989, BMJ.