A five-point checklist to help performance reports incentivize improvement and effectively guide patients

Health Affairs

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 612-618

  Friedberg, Mark W ^a,b   Damberg, Cheryl L ^a  

^a RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

^b BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS; ARTICLE; CHECKLIST; COMPOSITE SCORE; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PATIENT CARE; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; PUBLIC REPORTING; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; CHECKLIST; EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; HEALTH PERSONNEL; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MOTIVATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; QUALITY INDICATORS, HEALTH CARE;

EID: 84858597732     PISSN: 02782715     EISSN: 15445208     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.1202     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. O'Neil S, Schurrer J, Simon S. Environmental scan of public reporting programs and analysis: final report: Mathematica Policy Research report submitted to the National Quality Forum. Washington (DC): National Quality Forum; 2010 Sep 30.
2. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148; 2010.
3. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Community quality collaboratives [Internet]. Rockville (MD): AHRQ; 2001 [updated 2011 Dec; cited 2012 Jan 23]. Available from: http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/value/localnetworks.htm
4. Friedberg MW, Damberg CL. Methodological considerations in generating provider performance scores for use in public reporting: a guide for community quality collaboratives [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011 Sep [cited 2012 Jan 27]. Available from: http://ahrq.hhs.gov/qual/value/perfscoresmethods
5. Hibbard J, Sofaer S. Best practices in public reporting No. 1: how to effectively present health care performance data to consumers [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2010 Jun [cited 2012 Jan 27]. Available from: http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/pubrptguide1.htm
6. Sofaer S, Hibbard J. Best practices in public reporting No. 2: maximizing consumer understanding of public comparative quality reports: effective use of explanatory information [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2010 Jun [cited 2012 Jan 27]. Available from: http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/pubrptguide2.htm
7. Adams JL, Mehrotra A, Thomas JW, McGlynn EA. Physician cost profiling- reliability and risk of misclassification: detailed methodology and sensitivity analyses. Santa Monica (CA): RAND; 2010.
8. Sequist TD, Schneider EC, Li A, Rogers WH, Safran DG. Reliability of medical group and physician performance measurement in the primary care setting. Med Care. 2011; 49(2):126-31.
9. Davis MM, Hibbard JH, Milstein A. Issue brief: consumer tolerance for inaccuracy in physician performance ratings: one size fits none. Washington (DC): Center for Studying Health System Change; 2007 March.
10. Dimick JB, Staiger DO, Baser O, Birkmeyer JD. Composite measures for predicting surgical mortality in the hospital. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(4):1189-98.
11. Elliott M, Zaslavsky A, Cleary P. Are finite population corrections appropriate when profiling institutions? Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2006;6(3):153-6.
12. Scholle SH, Roski J, Adams JL, Dunn DL, Kerr EA, Dugan DP, et al. Benchmarking physician performance: reliability of individual and composite measures. Am J Manag Care. 2008;14(12):833-8.
13. Nolan T, Berwick DM. All-or-none measurement raises the bar on performance. JAMA. 2006;295(10): 1168-70.
14. Reeves D, Campbell SM, Adams J, Shekelle PG, Kontopantelis E, Roland MO. Combining multiple indicators of clinical quality: an evaluation of different analytic approaches. Med Care. 2007;45(6): 489-96.
15. Mehrotra A, Adams JL, Thomas JW, McGlynn EA. The effect of different attribution rules on individual physician cost profiles. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(10):649-54.
16. Werner RM, Asch DA. The unintended consequences of publicly reporting quality information. JAMA. 2005;293(10):1239-44.
17. Hayward RA, Kent DM. 6 EZ steps to improving your performance: (or how to make P4P pay 4U!). JAMA. 2008;300(3):255-6.
18. Consumer-Purchaser Disclosure Project. Patient charter for physician performance measurement, reporting and tiering programs: ensuring transparency, fairness and independent review. Washington (DC): National Partnership for Women and Families; 2008 Apr 1.
19. Reid RO, Friedberg MW, Adams JL, McGlynn EA, Mehrotra A. Associations between physician characteristics and quality of care. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(16):1442-9.