Dataset Information

Understanding Consumer Perceptions and Awareness of Hospital-Based Maternity Care Quality Measures.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To explore factors that may influence use of comparative public reports for hospital maternity care.

Data sources

Four focus groups conducted in 2013 with 41 women and preintervention survey data collected in 2014 to 2015 from 245 pregnant women in North Carolina.

Study design

As part of a larger randomized controlled trial, we conducted qualitative formative research to develop an intervention that will be evaluated through pre- and postintervention surveys.

Data extraction methods

Analysis of focus group transcripts examined participants' perceptions of high-quality maternity care and the importance of different quality measures. Quantitative analysis included descriptive results of the preintervention survey and subgroup analyses to examine the impact of race, education, and being a first-time mom on outcomes.

Principal findings

When describing high-quality maternity care, participants focused on interactions with providers, including respect for preferences and communication. The importance of quality measures was influenced by the extent to which they focused on babies' health, were perceived as the hospital's responsibility, and were perceived as representing "standard care." At baseline, 28 percent of survey respondents had used quality information to choose a hospital. Survey respondents were more aware of some quality measures (e.g., breastfeeding support) than others (e.g., episiotomy rates).

Conclusions

Public reporting efforts could help increase relevance of maternity care quality measures by creating measures that reflect women's concerns, clearly explaining the hospital's role in supporting quality care, and showing how available quality measures can inform decisions about childbirth.

SUBMITTER: Maurer M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4874945 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction Consumer escalation systems allow patients and families to escalate concerns about acute clinical deterioration. Hospital staff can impact upon the success of this process. As part of evaluation processes within a Local Health Network, where a consumer escalation system was introduced in accordance with National requirements, we sought to explore clinicians’ understanding and perceptions of consumer escalation. Methods Voluntary and anonymous staff surveys pre, and post, system introduction. Quantitative data was analysed using descriptive statistics, chi-square independence, and non-parametric independent samples median tests. Qualitative data was evaluated using content analysis and cross-referenced with quantitative responses. Results Respondent’s (pre: 215; post: 89) area of work varied significantly between survey periods. Most agreed that patients/families have a sound knowledge of a patient’s typical health status (pre: 192/215 (89.3%); post 82/88 (93.2%)) and that patients/families should be encouraged to escalate concerns of deterioration to ward staff (pre: 209/212 (98.6%); post: 85/89 (95.5%)). Respondent perceptions of patient/family ability to recognise clinical deterioration varied. Staff agreement towards local response expectations decreased as the degree of clinical requirement increased. Staff concerns of increased workloads (pre: 90/214 (42.1%); post 12/72 (16.7%), p<0.001) and conflict generation (pre: 71/213 (33.3%); post: 7/71 (9.9%), p = 0.001) decreased significantly following system introduction. However, clinician perceptions of positive system effects also decreased (patient-staff rapport pre: 163/213 (76.5%); post: 38/72 (52.8%), p = 0.001; patient centred care pre: 188/214 (87.9%); post: 53/72 (73.6%), p = 0.012; patient safety pre: 173/214 (80.8%); post: 49/72 (68.1%), p = 0.077). Only 53% of respondents (pre: 112/213 (52.6%); post: 48/88 (54.5%)) perceived that patient/family have sufficient confidence to escalate concerns. Conclusion Consumer escalation systems require staff support. Staff perceptions may indicate, and act as, barriers to the operation of consumer escalation processes. Further exploration in identifying and managing staff barriers is crucial to the success of consumer escalation.

Project description:BackgroundLike all health care consumers, pregnant women have the right to make autonomous decisions about their medical care. However, this right has created confusion for a number of maternity care stakeholders, particularly in situations when a woman's decision may lead to increased risk of harm to the fetus. Little is known about care providers' perceptions of this situation, or of their legal accountability for outcomes experienced in pregnancy and birth. This paper examined maternity care providers' attitudes and beliefs towards women's right to make autonomous decisions during pregnancy and birth, and the legal responsibility of professionals for maternal and fetal outcomes.MethodsAttitudes and beliefs around women's autonomy and health professionals' legal accountability were measured in a sample of 336 midwives and doctors from both public and private health sectors in Queensland, Australia, using a questionnaire available online and in paper format. Student's t-test was used to compare midwives' and doctors' responses.ResultsBoth maternity care professionals demonstrated a poor understanding of their own legal accountability, and the rights of the woman and her fetus. Midwives and doctors believed the final decision should rest with the woman; however, each also believed that the needs of the woman may be overridden for the safety of the fetus. Doctors believed themselves to be ultimately legally accountable for outcomes experienced in pregnancy and birth, despite the legal position that all health care professionals are responsible only for adverse outcomes caused by their own negligent actions. Interprofessional differences were evident, with midwives and doctors significantly differing in their responses on five of the six items.ConclusionsMaternity care professionals inconsistently supported women's right to autonomous decision making during pregnancy and birth. This finding is further complicated by care providers' poor understanding of legal accountability for outcomes experienced in pregnancy and birth. The findings of this study support the need for guidelines on decision making in pregnancy and birth for maternity care professionals, and for recognition of interprofessional differences in beliefs around the rights of the woman, her fetus and health professionals in order to facilitate collaborative practice.

Project description:Public reporting of quality is considered a key strategy for stimulating improvement efforts at US hospitals; however, little is known about the attitudes of hospital leaders toward existing quality measures.To describe US hospital leaders' attitudes toward hospital quality measures found on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Hospital Compare website, assess use of these measures for quality improvement, and examine the association between leaders' attitudes and hospital quality performance.We mailed a 21-item questionnaire from January 1 through September 31, 2012, to senior hospital leaders from a stratified random sample of 630 US hospitals, including equal numbers with better-than-expected, as-expected, and worse-than-expected performance on mortality and readmission measures.We assessed levels of agreement with statements concerning quality measures, examined use of measures for improvement activities, and analyzed the association between leaders' attitudes and hospital performance.Of 630 hospitals surveyed, 380 (60.3%) responded. For each of the mortality, readmission, process, and patient experience measures, more than 70% of hospitals agreed with the statement that "public reporting stimulates quality improvement activity at my institution"; agreement for measures of cost and volume was 65.2% and 53.3%, respectively. A similar pattern was observed for the statement that "our hospital is able to influence performance on this measure"; agreement for processes of care and patient experience measures was 96.4% and 94.2%, respectively. A total of 89.7% of hospitals agreed that the hospital's reputation was influenced by patient experience measures; agreement was 77.4% for mortality, 69.9% for readmission, 76.3% for process measures, 66.1% for cost measures, and 54.0% for volume measures. A total of 87.1% of hospitals reported incorporating performance on publicly reported measures into their hospital's annual goals, whereas 90.2% reported regularly reviewing the results with the hospital's board of trustees and 94.3% with senior clinical and administrative leaders. When compared with chief executive officers and chief medical officers, respondents who identified themselves as chief quality officers or vice presidents of quality were less likely to agree that public reporting stimulates quality improvement and that measured differences are large enough to differentiate among hospitals.Hospital leaders indicated that the measures reported on the Hospital Compare website exert strong influence over local planning and improvement efforts. However, they expressed concerns about the clinical meaningfulness, unintended consequences, and methods of public reporting.

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:BackgroundHospital leaders play an important role in the success of quality improvement (QI) initiatives, yet little is known about how leaders engaged in QI currently view quality performance measures. In a follow-up to a quantitative study conducted in 2012, a study employing qualitative content analysis was conducted to (1) describe leaders' opinions about the quality measures reported on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Compare website, (2) to generate hypotheses about barriers/facilitators to improving hospitals' performance, and (3) to elicit recommendations about how to improve publicly reported quality measures.MethodsThe opinions of leaders from a stratified sample of 630 hospitals across the United States regarding quality measures were assessed with an open-ended prompt that was part of a 21-item questionnaire about quality measures publicly reported by CMS. Their responses were qualitatively analyzed in an iterative process, resulting in the identification of the presence and frequency of major themes and subthemes.ResultsParticipants from 131 (21%) of the 630 hospitals surveyed replied to the open-ended prompt; 15% were from hospitals with higher-than-average performance scores, and 52% were from hospitals with lower-than-average scores. Major themes included (1) concerns regarding quality measurement (measure validity, importance, and fairness) and/or public reporting; 76%); (2) positive views of quality measurement (stimulate improvement, focus efforts; 13%); and (3) recommendations for improving quality measurement.ConclusionsAmong hospital leaders responding to an open-ended survey prompt, some supported the concept of measuring quality, but the majority criticized the validity and utility of current quality measures. Although quality measures are frequently being reevaluated and new measures developed, the ability of such measures to stimulate improvement may be limited without greater buy-in from hospital leaders.