Public Reporting im Gesundheitswesen: Die Auswirkungen veröffentlichter Qualitätsdaten auf die Patientensteuerung

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Ziel der Studie:

Public Reporting (PR) gewinnt zunehmend an Bedeutung bei dem Versuch der Patientensteuerung. Daher soll untersucht werden, welche Ergebnisse bezüglich der Effektivität von PR vorliegen und ob sich die Ergebnisse in Abhängigkeit des PR-Instrumentes unterscheiden. Die herausgearbeiteten Erfolgsfaktoren können insbesondere der in Deutschland zunehmenden Transparenz-Bewegung zugutekommen.

Methodik:

Systematischer Review mit Literatursuche in den folgenden 5 Datenbanken: The Cochrane Library, Medline (via PubMed), ISI Web of Knowledge, EconLit und PsycINFO. Peer-­reviewed Artikel in den Sprachen Englisch, Deutsch und Spanisch wurden für den Zeitraum seit 2005 gesucht. Studien vor diesem Zeitraum, auf die wir durch Durchsicht der einbezogenen Literatur gestoßen sind, wurden ebenfalls integriert. Eine informelle Handsuche ergänzte die Suche.

Ergebnisse:

Wir identifizieren insgesamt 21 Studien, in denen die Auswirkungen 12 verschiedener PR-Instrumente auf den Patientenfluss untersucht werden. 20 Studien betrachten Erfahrungen aus den USA, eine Studie kommt aus Deutschland. Das am häufigsten untersuchte PR-Instrument ist das New York State Cardiac Surgery Reporting System (CSRS), das in 8 Studien betrachtet wurde. Als Gesamtergebnis hat sich ergeben, dass in 9 Studien ein Effekt auf die Patientensteuerung gezeigt wurde, während 7 Untersuchungen zu keinem eindeutigen Ergebnis kom­men und fünf Studien keinen Effekt nachweisen konnten.

Schlussfolgerung:

PR kann effektiv sein bei dem Versuch, den Patientenfluss zu steuern. Insbesondere bei elektiven Eingriffen hat sich eine Wirksamkeit gezeigt. Um erfolgreich zu sein, müssen die dargestellten Informationen glaubwürdig und verständlich sein, eine Neuigkeit darstellen, verbreitet werden sowie anwendbar und gemäß individueller Präferenzen darstellbar sein.

Abstract

Background:

Public reporting (PR) has been gaining more weight as a mechanism for patient steerage. According to the theory of PR, patients use information about the quality of health care providers before making decisions and selecting health-care providers. This paper contributes further knowledge on the effectiveness of PR and identifies critical success factors. These should be taken into account when implementing PR in the German health care system.

Methodology:

The peer-reviewed English, Spanish, and German language literature was searched in the following five databases: The Cochrane Library, Medline (via PubMed), ISI Web of Knowledge, EconLit, and PsycINFO (since 2005). In addition, reference lists of the included studies and reviews were screened in order to identify previously published studies.

Results:

In total, 21 studies were identified regarding the impact of 12 different PR instruments on patient steerage. An impact could be demonstrated in 9 studies, 7 studies showed mixed results, while 5 studies could not show any effect on patient steerage. 20 studies were carried out in the US environment, 1 study in Germany. The most researched instrument is the New York State Cardiac Surgery Reporting System (N=8).

Conclusion:

PR can be effective in steering pa­tients when seeking a health-care provider, especially for elective procedures. To be successful, information provided must be reliable, easily understandable, should further represent real news, and be disseminated widely. Besides this, it has to be applicable and modifiable according to individual preferences.

• Literatur

• 1 Ärzte Zeitung Online. Stiftung Gesundheitstest Ein Weg zu mehr Transparenz 2010 cited 2010 Dec 20. Available from: URL http://www.aerztezeitung.de/praxis_wirtschaft/klinikmanagement/article/619250/stiftung-gesundheitstest-weg-transparenz.html?sh=2&h=-278881598
  PubMed
• 2 Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung Versichertenbefragung der Kassenärztlichen Bundesvereinigung 2010: Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Bevölkerungsumfrage: FGW Forschungsgruppe Wahlen Telefonfeld GmbH 2010
  PubMed
• 3 Handelsblatt Online Krankenhaussuche: Die Suche nach der richtigen Klinik ist schwierig; 2009 cited 2010 Dec 20. Available from: URL http://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/handel-dienstleister/die-suche-nach-der-richtigen-klinik-ist-schwierig;2120827
  PubMed
• 4 Kronebusch K. Quality information and fragmented markets: Patient responses to hospital volume thresholds. Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law 2009; 34 (05) 777-827
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Passon A, Siegel M. Das Marktmodell im Gesundheitssystem. In: Lauterbach KW, Lüngen M, Schrappe M. eds Gesundheitsökonomie, Management und Evidence-based Medicine: Handbuch für Praxis, Politik und Studium. 3., völlig neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Stuttgart: Schattauer; 2010: 112-133
  Google Scholar
• 6 Ärzte Zeitung Online Klinik-Qualitätsberichte: Warum sie keiner liest 2009 cited 2010 Dec 20. Available from: URL http://www.aerztezeitung.de/praxis_wirtschaft/klinikmanagement/article/580989/klinik-qualitaetsberichte-keiner-liest.html?sh=2&h=-726684760
  PubMed
• 7 Schäfer C, Schwarz S. Wer findet die besten Ärzte Deutschlands? Arztbewertungsportale im Internet. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundh wesen (ZEFQ) 2010; (104) 572-577
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Emmert M, Maryschok M, Eisenreich S et al. Websites to assess quality of care – appropriate to identify good physicians?. Gesundheitswesen 2009; 71 (04) e18-e27 Availablefrom: URL: DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1103288.
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Emmert M, Sander U, Maryschok M et al. Arzt-Bewertungsportale im Internet: Eine aktuelle Bestandsaufnahme. IMPLICONplus – GesundheitspolitischeAnalysen 2010; (09)
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Rhoads KF, Konety BM, Dudley RA. Performance measurement, public reporting, and pay-for-performance. Urol Clin North Am 2009; 36 (01) 37-48 vi. Available from: URL: DOI: 10.1016/j.ucl.2008.08.003.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Fung CH, Lim YW, Mattke S et al. Systematic review: The evidence that publishing patient care performance data improves quality of care. Annals of the Internal Medicine 2008; 148 (02) 111-123
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Mazor KM, Dodd KS, Kunches L. Communicating hospital infection data to the public: A study of consumer responses and preferences. American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality 2009; 24 (02) 108-115
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Berwick DM, James B, Coye MJ. Connections between quality measurement and improvement. Medical Care 2003; 41 (01) I30-I38
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Porter ME, Teisberg EO. Redefining health care: Creating value-based competition on results. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press; 2006
  Google Scholar
• 15 Schauffler HH, Mordavsky JK. Consumer reports in health care: Do they make a difference?. Annual Review of Public Health 2001; 22: 69-89
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der Entwicklung im Gesundheitswesen. Kooperation und Verantwortung: Voraussetzungen einer zielorientierten Gesundheitsversorgung: Gutachten 2007. Kurzfassung; Bonn: 2007
  Google Scholar
• 17 Mukamel DB, Spector WD. Quality report cards and nursing home quality. The Gerontologist 2003; 43 (02) 58-66
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Asch SM, Kerr EA, Keesey J et al. Who is at greatest risk for receiving poor-quality health care?. N Engl J Med 2006; 354 (11) 1147-1156 Available from: URL: DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa044464.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Schneider EC, Lieberman T. Publicly disclosed information about the quality of health care: response of the US public. Qual Health Care 2001; 10 (02) 96-103
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Stevenson DG. Is a Public Reporting Approach Appropriate for Nursing Home Care?. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 2006; 31 (04) 773-810
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Faber M, Bosch M, Wollersheim H et al. Public reporting in health care: How do consumers use quality-of-care information? A systematic review. Medical Care 2009; 47 (01) 1-8
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Werner RM, Asch DA. The Unintended Consequences of Publicly Reporting Quality Information. Journal of the American Medical Association 2005; 293 (10) 1239-1244
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Castle NG. Consumers’ use of internet-based nursing home report cards. Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety/Joint Commission Resources 2009; 35 (06) 316-323
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Castle NG. The Nursing Home Compare report card: Consumers’ use and understanding. Journal of aging & social policy 2009; 21 (02) 187-208 Available from: URL: DOI: 10.1080/08959420902733272.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Hibbard JH, Peters E. Supporting informed consumer health care decisions: Data presentation approaches that facilitate the use of information in choice. Annual Review of Public Health 2003; 24: 413-433
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Hibbard JH, Stockard J, Tusler M. It isn't just about choice: The potential of a public performance report to affect the public image of hospitals. Medical Care Research and Review 2005; 62: 358-371
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Schneider EC, Epstein AM. Use of public performance reports: a survey of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. JAMA 1998; 279 (20) 1638-1642
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Merle V, Germain JM, Tavolacci MP et al. Influence of infection control report cards on patients’ choice of hospital: pilot survey. J Hosp Infect 2009; 71 (03) 263-268 Available from: URL: DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2008.11.025.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Kang H, Kim SJ, Cho W et al. Consumer use of publicly released hospital performance information: Assessment of the National Hospital Evaluation Program in Korea. Health Policy 2009; 89 (02) 174-183
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Berendsen AJ, de Jong GM, Schuling J et al. Patient's need for choise and information across the interface between primary and secondary care: A survey. Patient education and counseling 2010; 79 (01) 100-105
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Hannan EL, Kilburn H, Racz JR et al. MR. Improving the outcomes of coronary artery bypass surgery in New York State. Journal of the American Medical Association 1994; 271 (10) 761-766
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Mukamel DB, Mushlin AI. Quality of care information makes a difference: An analysis of market share and price changes after publication of the New York State Cardiac Surgery Mortality Reports. Medical Care 1998; 36 (07) 945-954
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Vladeck BC, Goodwin EJ, Myers LP et al. Consumers and hospital use: The HCFA „death list“. Health affairs (Project Hope) 1988; 7 (01) 122-125
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 34 Mennemeyer ST, Morrisey MA, Howard LZ. Death and reputation: How consumers acted upon HCFA mortality information. Inquiry 1997; 34 (02) 117-128
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 35 Miller MG, Miller LS, Fireman B et al. Variation in practice for discretionary admissions: Impact on estimates of quality of hospital care. Journal of the American Medical Association 1994; 271: 1493-1498
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 36 Howard DH. Quality and consumer choice in healthcare: Evidence from kidney transplantation. Topics in Economic Analysis & Policy 2006; 5: 1349
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 37 Romano PS, Zhou H. Do well-publicized risk-adjusted outcomes reports affect hospital volume?. Medical Care 2004; 42 (04) 367-377
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 38 Li Z, Carlisle DM, Marcin JP et al. Impact of public reporting on access to coronary artery bypass surgery: The California Outcomes Reporting Program. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 2010; 89 (04) 1131-1138
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 39 Baker DW, Einstadter D, Thomas C et al. The effect of publicly reporting hospital performance on market share and risk-adjusted mortality at high-mortality hospitals. Medical Care 2003; 41 (06) 729-740
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 40 U.S. News Online. Best Hospitals 2010-11: The Methodology. 2010 Available from: URL: http://health.usnews.com/health-news/best-hospitals/articles/2010/07/14/best-hospitals-2010-11-the-methodology.html?s_cid=related-links:TOP
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 41 Pope DG. Reacting to Rankings: Evidence from ‘America’s Best Hospitals’. Journal of Health Economics 2009; 28 (06) 1154-1165
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 42 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Assisted Reproductive Technology: 2007 ART Report Preface; o. J. cited 2010 Dec 20. Available from: URL http://www.cdc.gov/art/ART2007/preface.htm
  PubMed
• 43 Wübker A, Sauerland D, Wübker A. Beeinflussen bessere Qualitatsinformationen die Krankenhauswahl in Deutschland? EineempirischeUntersuchung. (Does Better Quality Information Affect Hospital Choice in Germany? An Empirical Analysis. With English summary.). Jahrbucher fur Nationalokonomie und Statistik 2010; Available from: URL: http://content.ebscohost.com/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P=AN&K=1136454&EbscoContent=dGJyMMvl7ESeqK44wtvhOLCmr0iep65Ssqi4S7GWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGnr0uvqbNIuePfgeyx%2BEu3q64A&D=eoh
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 44 Hannan EL, Kilburn HJR, Lindsey ML et al. . Clinical versus administrative data bases for CABG surgery: Does it matter?. Medical Care 1992; 30 (10) 892-907
  CrossrefPubMed
• 45 Mukamel DB, Weimer DL, Zwanziger J et al. Quality report cards, selection of cardiac surgeons, and racial disparities: A study of the publication of the New York State Cardiac Surgery Reports. Inquiry 2004; –2005 41 (04) 435-446
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 46 Romano PS, Rainwater JA, Antonius D. Grading the graders: How hospitals in California and New York perceive and interpret their report cards. Medical Care 1999; 37: 295-305
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 47 Mukamel DB, Mushlin AI. The impact of quality report cards on choice of physicians, hospitals, and HMOs: A mid-course evaluation. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement 2001; 27: 20-27
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 48 Peters EabDNabDAbHJHbMCKa. Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Medical Care Research and Review 2007; 64 (02) 169-190
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 49 Mukamel DB, Weimer DL, Mushlin AI. Interpreting market share changes as evidence for effectiveness of quality report cards. Medical Care 2007; 45 (12) 1227-1232
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 50 Dranove D, Sfekas A. Start Spreading the News: A Structural Estimate of the Effects of New York Hospital Report Cards. Journal of Health Economics 2008; 27 (05) 1201-1207
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 51 Marshall MN, Romano PS, Davies HT. How do we maximize the impact of the public reporting of quality of care?: International journal for quality in health care: journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care. Journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care 2004; 16: i57-i63
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 52 Rothberg MB, Benjamin EM, Lindenauer PK. Public reporting of hospital quality: Recommendations to benefit patients and hospitals. Journal of hospital medicine (Online) 2009; 4 (09) 541-545
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 53 Fanjiang G, von Glahn T, Rogers WH et al. Providing patients web-based data to inform physician choice: If you build it, will they come?. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2007; 22 (10) 1463-1466
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 54 Fung CH, Elliott MN, Hays RD et al. Patients’ preferences for technical versus interpersonal quality when selecting a primary care physician. Health Services Research 2005; 40 (04) 957-977
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 55 Lagu T, Hannon NS, Rothberg MB et al. Patients’ evaluations of health care providers in the era of social networking: an analysis of physician-rating websites. J Gen Intern Med 2010; 25 (09) 942-946
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 56 Lagu T, Lindenauer PK. Putting the public back in public reporting of health care quality. JAMA 2010; 304 (15) 1711-1712
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar