Hospital report cards have proliferated in the 1990s but remain controversial because risk-adjusted outcomes measures are complex and have uncertain validity.
Despite this controversy, little is known about their value and impact.
A two-stage survey of hospital leaders in California was undertaken in September 1996 and July 1997 to explore how the 1996 reports and data from the California Hospital Outcomes Project (CHOP) were used to improve organizations'performance.
In the first stage, a questionnaire was mailed to the chief executive officer of each hospital in the report.
In the second stage, a stratified random sample of the respondents who indicated a willingness to provide further information was interviewed.
Thirty-nine interviews were completed, representing 87% yield after replacing informants who failed to return six messages.
About three-quarters of the interviewees found some aspect of the CHOP report to be useful, especially for benchmarking performance, improving ICD-9-CM (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification) coding, and educating physicians about documentation and clinical pathways.
The most common criticisms were that the reports were not timely and described death rates without providing practical information about the process of care. (...)
Mots-clés Pascal : Hôpital, Epidémiologie, Variable, Validité, Méthode étude, Soin, Nursing, Entretien, Processus, Méthodologie, Infarctus, Cardiopathie coronaire, Cardiopathie, Appareil circulatoire pathologie, Maladie, Qualité, Indicateur, Santé, Etat sanitaire, Mesure
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Hospital, Epidemiology, Variable, Validity, Investigation method, Care, Nursing, Interview, Process, Methodology, Infarct, Coronary heart disease, Heart disease, Cardiovascular disease, Disease, Quality, Indicator, Health, Health status, Measurement
Notice produite par :
ORS Auvergne - Observatoire Régional de la Santé d'Auvergne
Code Inist : 002B30A11. Création : 21/07/1998.