Dataset Information

Should interventions to reduce variation in care quality target doctors or hospitals?

ABSTRACT: Interventions to reduce variation in care quality are increasingly targeted at both individual doctors and the organisations in which they work. Concerns remain about the scope and consequences for such performance management, the relative contribution of individuals and organisations to observed variation, and whether performance can be measured reliably. This study explores these issues in the context of the English National Health Service by analysing comprehensive administrative data for all patients treated for four clinical conditions (acute myocardial infarction, hip fracture, pneumonia, ischemic stroke) and two surgical procedures (coronary artery bypass, hip replacement) during April 2010-February 2013. Performance indicators are defined as 30-day mortality, 28-day emergency readmission and inpatient length of stay. Three-level hierarchical generalised linear mixed models are estimated to attribute variation in case-mix adjusted indicators to individual doctors and hospital organisations. Except for length of stay after hip replacement, no more than 11% of variation in case-mix adjusted performance indicators can be attributed to doctors and organisations with the rest reflecting random chance and unobserved patient factors. Doctor variation exceeds hospital variation by a factor of 1.2 or more. However, identifying poor performance amongst doctors is hampered by insufficient numbers of cases per doctor to reliably estimate their individual performances. Policy makers and regulators should therefore be cautious when targeting individual doctors in performance improvement initiatives.

SUBMITTER: Gutacker N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6022214 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Should interventions to reduce variation in care quality target doctors or hospitals?

Gutacker Nils N Bloor Karen K Bojke Chris C Walshe Kieran K

Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 20180413 6

Interventions to reduce variation in care quality are increasingly targeted at both individual doctors and the organisations in which they work. Concerns remain about the scope and consequences for such performance management, the relative contribution of individuals and organisations to observed variation, and whether performance can be measured reliably. This study explores these issues in the context of the English National Health Service by analysing comprehensive administrative data for all ...[more]

PMID: 29703654

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding the perceived importance of Patient-Centered Care (PCC) among Palestinian doctors and how the provider and other clinical characteristics may impact their views on PCC is essential to determine the extent to which PCC can be implemented. This study investigates the provision of PCC among hospital doctors in a developing and unstable country, namely, Palestine.MethodsThis descriptive, cross-sectional research employed self-report survey among 369 Palestinian doctors working in hospitals in 2016. Respondents completed the Provider-Patient Relationship Questionnaire (PPRQ) and were asked to rate the importance of 16 PCC subjects in a context-free manner. Then they scored the existence of eight contextual attributes in their workplace.ResultsAlthough 71.4% of the participants got training in communication, only 45% of the participants knew about PCC. 48.8% of doctors considered the "exchange of information" with patients most important PCC component. Clustering identified three groups of doctors: 32.4% of doctors reported good perceptions of PCC, 47.5% moderate; and 20.1% poor. Older, married, and specialist doctors and those familiar with PCC are more likely classified in the "good" cluster. Results revealed a significant difference between doctors' views based on their gender, experience, marital status, previous knowledge about PCC, and type of hospital in favor of males, experienced, married, familiar with PCC, and doctors in private hospital respectively. The level of job interest, nurses' cooperation, the tendency of patients to hide information, and doctor's friendly style were positively related with more perceived importance of PCC.ConclusionWe identified benchmark doctors who perceive the high relative importance of PCC. Our results highlighted knowledge gaps and training weaknesses among doctors in public and private hospitals in respect to their views on PCC. Decision makers may invest in the determined contextual predictors to enhance attitudes towards PCC. This work doesn't address patients' views on PCC.

Project description:BackgroundAgainst a backdrop of rising healthcare costs, variability in care provision and an increased emphasis on patient satisfaction, the need for effective interventions to improve quality of care has come to the fore. This is the first ten year (2000-2010) systematic review of interventions which sought to improve quality of care in a hospital setting. This review moves beyond a broad assessment of outcome significance levels and makes recommendations for future effective and accessible interventions.MethodsTwo researchers independently screened a total of 13,195 English language articles from the databases PsychInfo, Medline, PubMed, EmBase and CinNahl. There were 120 potentially relevant full text articles examined and 20 of those articles met the inclusion criteria.ResultsIncluded studies were heterogeneous in terms of approach and scientific rigour and varied in scope from small scale improvements for specific patient groups to large scale quality improvement programmes across multiple settings. Interventions were broadly categorised as either technical (n = 11) or interpersonal (n = 9). Technical interventions were in the main implemented by physicians and concentrated on improving care for patients with heart disease or pneumonia. Interpersonal interventions focused on patient satisfaction and tended to be implemented by nursing staff. Technical interventions had a tendency to achieve more substantial improvements in quality of care.ConclusionsThe rigorous application of inclusion criteria to studies established that despite the very large volume of literature on quality of care improvements, there is a paucity of hospital interventions with a theoretically based design or implementation. The screening process established that intervention studies to date have largely failed to identify their position along the quality of care spectrum. It is suggested that this lack of theoretical grounding may partly explain the minimal transfer of health research to date into policy. It is recommended that future interventions are established within a theoretical framework and that selected quality of care outcomes are assessed using this framework. Future interventions to improve quality of care will be most effective when they use a collaborative approach, involve multidisciplinary teams, utilise available resources, involve physicians and recognise the unique requirements of each patient group.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Pesticides are responsible for a significant percentage of deaths globally with majority occurring in sub-Saharan Africa. Deaths due to pesticide poisoning can be reduced if poisoning cases are managed optimally. However, the quality of care given to pesticide poisoning patients is still insufficient especially in sub-Saharan Africa. This study was aimed at exploring doctors' experiences on quality of care for pesticide poisoning cases in hospitals in Kampala, Uganda. METHODS:Fifteen (15) in-depth interviews were conducted with doctors who were directly involved in management of pesticide poisoning patients in the accident and emergency, Medicine, Pediatrics and Intensive Care Unit wards in 5 hospitals in Kampala, Uganda. All interviews were transcribed and subjected to directed content analysis with the guidance of the Donabedian model of quality of care which emphasizes structure, process and outcome measures as pertinent to ensuring quality of care. RESULTS:Doctors reported structural, process and outcome facets that support diagnosis and treatment of pesticide poisoning cases that improved the quality of care they provided. Among the structures includes hospital units such as Intensive Care Unit (ICU), pediatrics and internal medicine; equipment and clinical guidelines such as airway, breathing and consciousness (ABC) protocol; and doctors' knowledge and experiences. Doctors relied on history, and signs and symptoms to establish the cause and severity of pesticide poisoning. However, some patients and caretakers provided inaccurate pesticide poisoning history. Due to its availability in hospitals, doctors largely relied on atropine to manage pesticide poisoning cases whether or not relevant to treat the actual pesticide active ingredient responsible for the poisoning. Although majority of the cases treated recovered, those due to suicide were further referred to the hospital psychiatrist. Sharing experiences of managing pesticide poisoning patients among health workers and engaging in sensitization outreaches against pesticide poisoning were reported as potential activities to improve quality of care for pesticide poisoning patients. CONCLUSION:Doctors reflected on the structure, process and outcome measures of quality of care given to pesticide poisoning patients. The implications of hospital structures and clinical process to the quality of the outcomes of care demonstrates their importance in improving management of pesticide poisoning cases in hospitals in Kampala, Uganda.

Dataset Information

Should interventions to reduce variation in care quality target doctors or hospitals?

Publications

Should interventions to reduce variation in care quality target doctors or hospitals?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets