Public disclosure of hospital clinicians' performance data: insights from medical directors

2020 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 228
Author(s):  
Rachel Canaway ◽  
Khic-Houy Prang ◽  
Marie Bismark ◽  
David Dunt ◽  
Margaret Kelaher
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Reporting ◽  
Hospital Quality ◽  
Performance Data ◽  
Quality And Safety ◽  
The Public ◽  
Level Data ◽  
Medical Directors ◽  
Individual Clinician

Objective This study gathered information from public hospital chief medical officers to better understand underlying mechanisms through which public reporting affects institutional behavioural change and decision making towards quality improvement. Methods This qualitative study used thematic analysis of 17 semistructured, in-depth interviews among a peak group of medical directors representing 26 health services in Victoria, Australia. Results The medical directors indicated a high level of in-principle support for public reporting of identifiable, individual clinician-level data. However, they also described varying conceptual understanding of what public reporting of performance data is. Overall, they considered public reporting of individual clinicians’ performance data a means to improve health care quality, increase transparency and inform consumer healthcare decision making. Most identified caveats that would need to be met before such data should be publicly released, in particular the need to resolve issues around data quality and timeliness, context and interpretation and ethics. Acknowledgement of the public’s right to access individual clinician-level data was at odds with some medical directors’ belief that such reporting may diminish trust between clinicians and their employers, thus eroding rather than motivating quality improvement. Conclusions Public reporting of identifiable individual healthcare clinicians’ performance data is an issue that merits robust research and debate given the effects such reporting may have on doctors and on hospital quality and safety. What is known about the topic? The public reporting of individual clinician-level data is a mechanism used in some countries, but not in Australia, for increasing health care transparency and quality. Clinician-level public reporting of doctors’ performance attracts contention and debate in Australia. What does this paper add? This paper informs debate around the public reporting of individual clinician-level performance data. Among a discrete cohort of senior hospital administrators in Victoria, Australia, there was strong in-principle support for such public reporting as a means to improve hospital quality and safety. What are the implications for practitioners? Before public reporting of individual clinician performance data could occur in Australia, resolution of issues would be required relating to legality and ethics, data context and interpretation, data quality and timeliness.

Medical directors’ perspectives on strengthening hospital quality and safety

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (7/8) ◽  
pp. 696-712 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Canaway ◽  
Marie Bismark ◽  
David Dunt ◽  
Margaret Kelaher
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Performance ◽  
Hospital Quality ◽  
Performance Data ◽  
System Level ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Quality And Safety ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Record Keeping ◽  
Hospital Safety ◽  
Medical Directors

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand the concerns and factors that impact on hospital quality and safety, particularly related to use of performance data, within a setting of devolved governance. Design/methodology/approach This qualitative study used thematic analysis of interviews with public hospital medical directors. For additional context, findings were framed by themes from a review of hospital safety and quality in the same jurisdiction. Findings Varying approaches and levels of complexity were described about what and how performance data are reviewed, prioritised, and quality improvements implemented. Although no consistent narrative emerged, facilitators of improvement were suggested relating to organisational culture, governance, resources, education, and technologies. These hospital-level perspectives articulate with and expand on the system-level themes in a state-wide review of hospital safety and quality. Research limitations/implications The findings are not generalisable, but point to an underlying absence of system-wide agreement on how to perceive, retrieve, analyse, prioritise and action hospital performance data. Practical implications Lack of electronic medical records and an inefficient incident reporting system limits the extent to which performance and incident data can be analysed, linked and shared, thus limiting hospital performance improvement, oversight and learning. Social implications Variable approaches to quality and safety, standards of care, and hospital record keeping and reporting, mean that healthcare consumers might expect inconsistency across Victorian hospitals. Originality/value The views of medical directors have been little researched. This work uses their voice to better understand contextual factors that situate and impact on hospital quality and safety towards understanding the mixed effectiveness of hospital quality improvement strategies.

scholarly journals Involving citizens in disinvestment decisions: what do health professionals think? Findings from a multi-method study in the English NHS

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 162-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Daniels ◽  
Iestyn Williams ◽  
Stirling Bryan ◽  
Craig Mitton ◽  
Suzanne Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Health Care Systems ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Local Health ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health Care Leaders ◽  
Local Health Care ◽  
Care Systems

AbstractPublic involvement in disinvestment decision making in health care is widely advocated, and in some cases legally mandated. However, attempts to involve the public in other areas of health policy have been accused of tokenism and manipulation. This paper presents research into the views of local health care leaders in the English National Health Service (NHS) with regards to the involvement of citizens and local communities in disinvestment decision making. The research includes a Q study and follow-up interviews with a sample of health care clinicians and managers in senior roles in the English NHS. It finds that whilst initial responses suggest high levels of support for public involvement, further probing of attitudes and experiences shows higher levels of ambivalence and risk aversion and a far more cautious overall stance. This study has implications for the future of disinvestment activities and public involvement in health care systems faced with increased resource constraint. Recommendations are made for future research and practice.

scholarly journals From idealistic rookies to a regional leader: The history of health technology assessment in Poland

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (S1) ◽  
pp. 156-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafał Niżankowski ◽  
Norbert Wilk
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
The Public ◽  
History Of ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Public Payer

In 1989, Poland started to slowly release itself not only from the burden of a half-century of communist indoctrination and soviet exploitation, but also from the consequences of the Semashko model of healthcare organization: low doctors' salaries, primary care based on multispecialty groups, overdeveloped hospital infrastructure, and limited access to sophisticated interventions overcome by patients' unofficial payments.A few years after the 1998 workshop on health technology assessment (HTA) in Budapest, the first HTA reports were elaborated in the National Center for Quality Assessment in Health Care, which could mark the beginning of HTA in Poland. Several individuals and organizations have been involved in developing HTA, both from noncommercial and commercial standpoints.A goal to establish a national HTA agency appeared among the priorities of the Polish Ministry of Health in 2004 and was realized a year later. The Agency for HTA in Poland published guidelines on HTA and established a sound and transparent two-step (assessment-appraisal) process for preparing recommendations on public financing of both drugs and nondrug technologies. The recommendations of the Agency's Consultative Council were warmly welcomed by the public payer. However, the recent major restructuring of the Agency and new drug reimbursement decisions aroused doubts as to keeping transparency of the decision-making processes.

Participation in health care priority-setting through the eyes of the participants

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 222-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Martin ◽  
Julia Abelson ◽  
Peter Singer
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Medical Specialist ◽  
Committee Chair ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health Care Priority Setting ◽  
Patient Representative

Objectives: The literature on participation in priority-setting has three key gaps: it focuses on techniques for obtaining public input into priority-setting that are consultative mechanisms and do not involve the public directly in decision-making; it focuses primarily on the public's role in priority-setting, not on all potential participants; and the range of roles that various participants play in a group making priority decisions has not been described. To begin addressing these gaps, we interviewed individuals who participated on two priority-setting committees to identify key insights from participants about participation. Methods: A qualitative study consisting of interviews with decision-makers, including patients and members of the public. Results: Members of the public can contribute directly to important aspects of priority-setting. The participants described six specific priority-setting roles: committee chair, administrator, medical specialist, medical generalist, public representative and patient representative. They also described the contributions of each role to priority-setting. Conclusions: Using the insights from decision-makers, we have described lessons related to direct involvement of members of the public and patients in priority-setting, and have identified six roles and the contributions of each role.

scholarly journals Ebola US Patient Zero: lessons on misdiagnosis and effective use of electronic health records

Diagnosis ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 283-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Divvy K. Upadhyay ◽  
Dean F. Sittig ◽  
Hardeep Singh
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Disease Control ◽  
Diagnostic Errors ◽  
Health Records ◽  
The Public ◽  
Diagnostic Decision ◽  
Effective Use ◽  
Diagnostic Decision Making

AbstractOn September 30th, 2014, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed the first travel-associated case of US Ebola in Dallas, TX. This case exposed two of the greatest concerns in patient safety in the US outpatient health care system: misdiagnosis and ineffective use of electronic health records (EHRs). The case received widespread media attention highlighting failures in disaster management, infectious disease control, national security, and emergency department (ED) care. In addition, an error in making a correct and timely Ebola diagnosis on initial ED presentation brought diagnostic decision-making vulnerabilities in the EHR era into the public eye. In this paper, we use this defining “teachable moment” to highlight the public health challenge of diagnostic errors and discuss the effective use of EHRs in the diagnostic process. We analyze the case to discuss several missed opportunities and outline key challenges and opportunities facing diagnostic decision-making in EHR-enabled health care. It is important to recognize the reality that EHRs suffer from major usability and inter-operability issues, but also to acknowledge that they are only tools and not a replacement for basic history-taking, examination skills, and critical thinking. While physicians and health care organizations ultimately need to own the responsibility for addressing diagnostic errors, several national-level initiatives can help, including working with software developers to improve EHR usability. Multifaceted approaches that account for both technical and non-technical factors will be needed. Ebola US Patient Zero reminds us that in certain cases, a single misdiagnosis can have widespread and costly implications for public health.

‘The public is too subjective’: public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making

2002 ◽  
Vol 54 (12) ◽  
pp. 1825-1837 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Litva ◽  
Joanna Coast ◽  
Jenny Donovan ◽  
John Eyles ◽  
Michael Shepherd ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Health Care Decision ◽  
The Public ◽  
Care Decision ◽  
Different Levels

Reluctant Rationers: Public Input to Health Care Priorities

1997 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Lomas
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Funding ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Demographic Characteristics ◽  
Veil Of Ignorance ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Input ◽  
Health Care Evaluation

Members of the public can adopt any one of at least three roles when providing input to public decision-making: Taxpayer, collective community decision-maker, or patient. Each of these potential roles can be mapped onto three areas of public policy decision-making in health care: Funding levels and organization for the system, the services we choose to offer under public funding, and the characteristics of those who should receive the offered services. The increasing desire to involve the public across the spectrum of health care decision-making has yet to result in a clear delineation of either which of the areas are most appropriate for public input or which of the roles we wish individual participants to adopt. The average citizen (as opposed to the self-interested patient, the provider or the manager) has so far shown little interest in contributing and rarely has the requisite skills for most of the tasks asked of him or her. The widespread motivation of governments and others for seeking public input appears to be to get the public to take or share ownership in the tough rationing choices consequent on fiscal retrenchment in health care. Evaluation of existing literature leads to the conclusion that there are only limited areas where we might wish to obtain significant public input if we adopt this widespread policy motivation. Specifically, the general public should be asked to give input to, but not determine, priorities across the broad service categories that could potentially be publicly funded. Members of the public have neither the interest nor the skills to do this at the level of specific services. The role expected of such members of the public should be made explicit and should focus on collective views of the community good rather than self-interested views of individual benefit. Groups of patients, however, should be the source of input when socio-demographic characteristics are being used to decide who should receive offered services. The role expected of these consumers is not, however, to take a self-interested perspective; rather, it is to adopt Rawls' veil of ignorance' to reflect compassionate views of priorities across socio-demographic characteristics. Finally, there appears to be no best method for obtaining public input that overcomes the common problems of poor information upon which to base priorities, difficulty in arriving at consensus, poor representativeness of participants, and lack of opportunity for informed discussion prior to declaring priorities. There is some suggestion, however, that panels of citizens or patients, convened on an ongoing basis and provided with the opportunity to acquire relevant information and discuss its implications prior to making consensus recommendations, offer the most promising way forward.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document