Dataset Information

Hospital Quality Reporting in the United States: Does Report Card Design and Incorporation of Patient Narrative Comments Affect Hospital Choice?

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To explore the impact of hospital report card design and incorporation of patient narrative comments on consumers' choices of hospitals.

Data sources

Primary data collected from an online survey with 1,350 respondents in February, 2015.

Study design

A randomized 2 (narrative comments: yes, no) × 3 (design: representation of clinical performance in textual, star, numerical formats) between-subject online-based cross-sectional experiment.

Principal findings

In 51 percent of all cases, respondents selected the hospital with the best clinical results. Report cards with a numerical design induced choices more focused on clinical ratings (56.0 percent chose the highest rated hospital) than those with textual information (48.1 percent) or star ratings (47.3 percent) (p < .001). Report cards without narrative comments (49.7 percent) and with narratives (51.4 percent) were not associated with significant difference in selecting top-rated clinical hospitals (p = .376). But there were significant interactions affecting choice of hospitals among exposure to narratives, formatting of clinical performance, and respondents' education.

Conclusions

Consumers have a difficult time synthesizing quality data in various formats. Hospital report cards continue to pose challenging choices, especially for those with limited education. Narrative comments in their earliest emerging forms do not seem to be altering hospital choice as much as the literature has suggested for other providers, but they may have consequential impact on the choices of certain subsets of consumers.

SUBMITTER: Emmert M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5441500 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Hospital Quality Reporting in the United States: Does Report Card Design and Incorporation of Patient Narrative Comments Affect Hospital Choice?

Emmert Martin M Schlesinger Mark M

Health services research 20160620 3

<h4>Objective</h4>To explore the impact of hospital report card design and incorporation of patient narrative comments on consumers' choices of hospitals.<h4>Data sources</h4>Primary data collected from an online survey with 1,350 respondents in February, 2015.<h4>Study design</h4>A randomized 2 (narrative comments: yes, no) × 3 (design: representation of clinical performance in textual, star, numerical formats) between-subject online-based cross-sectional experiment.<h4>Principal findings</h4>I ...[more]

PMID: 27324087

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The majority of physician rating websites (PRWs) provide users the option to leave narrative comments about their physicians. Narrative comments potentially provide richer insights into patients' experiences and feelings that cannot be fully captured in predefined quantitative rating scales and are increasingly being examined. However, the content and nature of narrative comments on Swiss PRWs has not been examined to date. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to examine (1) the types of issues raised in narrative comments on Swiss PRWs and (2) the evaluation tendencies of the narrative comments. METHODS:A random stratified sample of 966 physicians was generated from the regions of Zürich and Geneva. Every selected physician was searched for on 3 PRWs (OkDoc, DocApp, and Medicosearch) and Google, and narrative comments were collected. Narrative comments were analyzed and classified according to a theoretical categorization framework of physician-, staff-, and practice-related issues. RESULTS:The selected physicians had a total of 849 comments. In total, 43 subcategories addressing the physician (n=21), staff (n=8), and practice (n=14) were identified. None of the PRWs' comments covered all 43 subcategories of the categorization framework; comments on Google covered 86% (37/43) of the subcategories, Medicosearch covered 72% (31/43), DocApp covered 60% (26/43), and OkDoc covered 56% (24/43). In total, 2441 distinct issues were identified within the 43 subcategories of the categorization framework; 83.65% (2042/2441) of the issues related to the physician, 6.63% (162/2441) related to the staff, and 9.70% (237/2441) related to the practice. Overall, 95% (41/43) of the subcategories of the categorization framework and 81.60% (1992/2441) of the distinct issues identified were concerning aspects of performance (interpersonal skills of the physician and staff, infrastructure, and organization and management of the practice) that are considered assessable by patients. Overall, 83.0% (705/849) of comments were classified as positive, 2.5% (21/849) as neutral, and 14.5% (123/849) as negative. However, there were significant differences between PRWs, regions, and specialty regarding negative comments: 90.2% (111/123) of negative comments were on Google, 74.7% (92/123) were regarding physicians in Zurich, and 73.2% (90/123) were from specialists. CONCLUSIONS:From the narrative comments analyzed, it can be reported that interpersonal issues make up nearly half of all negative issues identified, and it is recommended that physicians should focus on improving these issues. The current suppression of negative comments by Swiss PRWs is concerning, and there is a need for a consensus-based criterion to be developed to determine which comments should be published publicly. Finally, it would be helpful if Swiss patients are made aware of the current large differences between Swiss PRWs regarding the frequency and nature of ratings to help them determine which PRW will provide them with the most useful information.

Project description:Importance:The incidence and geographic range of Lyme disease continues to increase in the United States because of the expansion of Ixodes scapularis, the species of tick that is the main Lyme disease vector. Currently, no dynamic model for the disease spread exists that integrates information of both acarological and human case surveillance data. Objective:To characterize the spatiotemporal spread of Lyme disease in humans among counties in US endemic regions. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-sectional study modeled the spread of Lyme disease county-level case reporting, accounting for county-level demographic factors, environmental factors associated with tick presence and human exposure, and the spatiotemporal association between counties. The analyses were conducted between January and August 2019. The setting was 1405 counties in the following regions of the United States: West North Central, East North Central, New England, Middle Atlantic, and the South. Assessments were based on publicly available Lyme disease case data reported to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) between January 2000 and December 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures:Probability of reporting the first case of Lyme disease by county by year. Results:Between 2000 and 2017, a total of 497?569 Lyme disease cases were reported to the CDC in the study area. Reporting a first case of Lyme disease was associated with a county's and county's neighbors' forest coverage, elevation, percentage of population living in the wildland-urban interface, tick presence, county's population size, proportion of neighbors reporting cases, and neighbors' years since first reporting. The model that included these variables showed high predictive power, with a mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 81.1 (95% CI, 68.5-86.2). The model predicted the first reported Lyme disease case a mean (SD) of 5.5 (3.5) years earlier than was reported to the CDC, with a mean spread velocity estimated at 27.4 (95% CI, 13.6-54.4) km per year. Among 162 counties without reported cases, 47 (29.0%) had a high probability of reporting Lyme disease by 2018. The estimated mean time lag between the first reported case in a neighboring county and any county was 7 (95% CI, 3-8) years. Conclusions and Relevance:This study's findings suggest that, if updated regularly and expanded geographically, this predictive model could enable states and counties to develop more specific Lyme disease prevention and control plans, including improved sensitization of the general population and medical community.

Project description:BackgroundMany clinical trials conducted by academic organizations are not published, or are not published completely. Following the US Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, "The Final Rule" (compliance date April 18, 2017) and a National Institutes of Health policy clarified and expanded trial registration and results reporting requirements. We sought to identify policies, procedures, and resources to support trial registration and reporting at academic organizations.MethodsWe conducted an online survey from November 21, 2016 to March 1, 2017, before organizations were expected to comply with The Final Rule. We included active Protocol Registration and Results System (PRS) accounts classified by ClinicalTrials.gov as a "University/Organization" in the USA. PRS administrators manage information on ClinicalTrials.gov. We invited one PRS administrator to complete the survey for each organization account, which was the unit of analysis.ResultsEligible organization accounts (N = 783) included 47,701 records (e.g., studies) in August 2016. Participating organizations (366/783; 47%) included 40,351/47,701 (85%) records. Compared with other organizations, Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) holders, cancer centers, and large organizations were more likely to participate. A minority of accounts have a registration (156/366; 43%) or results reporting policy (129/366; 35%). Of those with policies, 15/156 (11%) and 49/156 (35%) reported that trials must be registered before institutional review board approval is granted or before beginning enrollment, respectively. Few organizations use computer software to monitor compliance (68/366; 19%). One organization had penalized an investigator for non-compliance. Among the 287/366 (78%) accounts reporting that they allocate staff to fulfill ClinicalTrials.gov registration and reporting requirements, the median number of full-time equivalent staff is 0.08 (interquartile range = 0.02-0.25). Because of non-response and social desirability, this could be a "best case" scenario.ConclusionsBefore the compliance date for The Final Rule, some academic organizations had policies and resources that facilitate clinical trial registration and reporting. Most organizations appear to be unprepared to meet the new requirements. Organizations could enact the following: adopt policies that require trial registration and reporting, allocate resources (e.g., staff, software) to support registration and reporting, and ensure there are consequences for investigators who do not follow standards for clinical research.

Dataset Information

Hospital Quality Reporting in the United States: Does Report Card Design and Incorporation of Patient Narrative Comments Affect Hospital Choice?

Objective

Data sources

Study design

Principal findings

Conclusions

Publications

Hospital Quality Reporting in the United States: Does Report Card Design and Incorporation of Patient Narrative Comments Affect Hospital Choice?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets