Dataset Information

Comparative Quality Indicators for Hospital Choice: Do General Practitioners Care?

ABSTRACT:

Context

The strategy of publicly reporting quality indicators is being widely promoted through public policies as a way to make health care delivery more efficient.

Objective

To assess general practitioners' (GPs) use of the comparative hospital quality indicators made available by public services and the media, as well as GPs' perceptions of their qualities and usefulness.

Method

A telephone survey of a random sample representing all self-employed GPs in private practice in France.

Results

A large majority (84.1%-88.5%) of respondents (n = 503; response rate of 56%) reported that they never used public comparative indicators, available in the mass media or on government and non-government Internet sites, to influence their patients' hospital choices. The vast majority of GPs rely mostly on traditional sources of information when choosing a hospital. At the same time, this study highlights favourable opinions shared by a large proportion of GPs regarding several aspects of hospital quality indicators, such as their good qualities and usefulness for other purposes. In sum, the results show that GPs make very limited use of hospital quality indicators based on a consumer choice paradigm but, at the same time, see them as useful in ways corresponding more to the usual professional paradigms, including as a means to improve quality of care.

SUBMITTER: Ferrua M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4740419 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative Quality Indicators for Hospital Choice: Do General Practitioners Care?

Ferrua Marie M Sicotte Claude C Lalloué Benoît B Minvielle Etienne E

PloS one 20160203 2

<h4>Context</h4>The strategy of publicly reporting quality indicators is being widely promoted through public policies as a way to make health care delivery more efficient.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess general practitioners' (GPs) use of the comparative hospital quality indicators made available by public services and the media, as well as GPs' perceptions of their qualities and usefulness.<h4>Method</h4>A telephone survey of a random sample representing all self-employed GPs in private practice i ...[more]

PMID: 26840429

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Parts of New Public Management-reforms of the public sector depend on introduction of market-like mechanisms to manage the sector, like free choice of hospital. However, patients may delegate the choice of hospital to agents like general practitioners (GPs). We have investigated which factors Danish GPs reported as decisive for their choice of hospital on behalf of patients, and their utilisation of formal and informal data sources when they chose a hospital on behalf of patients. METHODS: Retrospective questionnaire study of all of the 474 GPs practising in three counties which constituted a single uptake area. Patients were free to choose a hospital in another county in the country. The GPs were asked about responsibility for choice of the latest three patients referred by the GP to hospital; which of 16 factors influenced the choice of hospital; which of 15 sources of information about clinical quality at various hospitals/departments were considered relevant, and how often were six sources of information about waiting time utilised. RESULTS: Fifty-one percent (240 GPs) filled in and returned the questionnaire. One hundred and eighty-three GPs (76%) reported that they perceived that they chose the hospital on behalf of the latest referred patient. Short distance to hospital was the most common reason for choice of hospital.The most frequently used source of information about quality at hospital departments was anecdotal reports from patients referred previously, and the most important source of information about waiting time was the hospitals' letters of confirmation of referrals. CONCLUSIONS: In an area with free choice of public hospital most GPs perceived that they chose the hospital on behalf of patients. Short distance to hospital was the factor which most often decided the GPs' choice of hospital on behalf of patients. GPs attached little weight to official information on quality and service (waiting time) at hospitals or departments, focusing instead on informal sources like feedback from patients and colleagues and their experience with cooperation with the department or hospital.

Project description:BackgroundResults of associations between process and mortality indicators, both used for the external assessment of hospital care quality or public reporting, differ strongly across studies. However, most of those studies were conducted in North America or United Kingdom. Providing new evidence based on French data could fuel the international debate on quality of care indicators and help inform French policy-makers. The objective of our study was to explore whether optimal care delivery in French hospitals as assessed by their Hospital Process Indicators (HPIs) is associated with low Hospital Standardized Mortality Ratios (HSMRs).MethodsThe French National Authority for Health (HAS) routinely collects for each hospital located in France, a set of mandatory HPIs. Five HPIs were selected among the process indicators collected by the HAS in 2009. They were measured using random samples of 60 to 80 medical records from inpatients admitted between January 1st, 2009 and December 31, 2009 in respect with some selection criteria. HSMRs were estimated at 30, 60 and 90 days post-admission (dpa) using administrative health data extracted from the national health insurance information system (SNIIR-AM) which covers 77% of the French population. Associations between HPIs and HSMRs were assessed by Poisson regression models corrected for measurement errors with a simulation-extrapolation (SIMEX) method.ResultsMost associations studied were not statistically significant. Only two process indicators were found associated with HSMRs. Completeness and quality of anesthetic records was negatively associated with 30 dpa HSMR (0.72 [0.52-0.99]). Early detection of nutritional disorders was negatively associated with all HSMRs: 30 dpa HSMR (0.71 [0.54-0.95]), 60 dpa HSMR (0.51 [0.39-0.67]) and 90 dpa HSMR (0.52 [0.40-0.68]).ConclusionIn absence of gold standard of quality of care measurement, the limited number of associations suggested to drive in-depth improvements in order to better determine associations between process and mortality indicators. A smart utilization of both process and outcomes indicators is mandatory to capture aspects of the hospital quality of care complexity.

Project description:BackgroundRising healthcare expenditures places the potential for substitution of hospital care towards primary care high on the political agenda. As low-risk basal cell carcinoma (BCC) care is one of the potential targets for substitution of hospital care towards primary care the objective of this study is to gain insight in the views of healthcare professionals regarding substitution of skin cancer care, and to identify perceived barriers and potential strategies to facilitate substitution.MethodsA qualitative study was conducted consisting of 40 interviews with dermatologists and GPs and three focus groups with 18 selected GPs with noted willingness regarding substitution of skin cancer care. The interviews and focus groups focused on general views, perceived barriers and potential strategies to facilitate substitution of skin cancer care, using predefined topic lists. All sessions were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using the program AtlasTi.ResultsGPs were generally positive regarding substitution of skin care whereas dermatologists expressed more concerns. Lack of trust in GPs to adequately perform skin cancer care and a preference of patients for dermatologists are reported as barriers by dermatologists. The main barriers reported by GPs were a lack of confidence in own skills to perform skin cancer care, a lack of trust from both patients and dermatologists and limited time and financial compensation. Facilitating strategies suggested by both groups mainly focused on improving GPs' education and improving the collaboration between primary and secondary care. GPs additionally suggested efforts from dermatologists to increase their own and patients' trust in GPs, and time and financial compensation. The selected group of GPs suggested practical solutions to facilitate substitution focusing on changes in organizational structure including horizontal referring, outreach models and practice size reduction.ConclusionsGPs and, to lesser extent, dermatologists are positive regarding substitution of low-risk BCC care, though report substantial barriers that need to be addressed before substitution can be further implemented. Aside from essential strategies such as improving GPs' skin cancer education and time and financial compensation, rearranging the organizational structure in primary care and between primary and secondary care may facilitate effective and safe substitution of low-risk BCC care.

Dataset Information

Comparative Quality Indicators for Hospital Choice: Do General Practitioners Care?

Context

Objective

Method

Results

Publications

Comparative Quality Indicators for Hospital Choice: Do General Practitioners Care?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets