Benchmarking, public reporting, and pay-for-performance: A mixed-methods survey of California pediatric intensive care unit medical directors

JoAnne E Natale, Jill G Joseph, Ryan D. Honomichl, Lianna G. Bazanni, Kimie J. Kagawa, James P Marcin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: We sought to assess the attitudes of pediatric intensive care unit medical directors in California regarding the need for, the validity of, and the potential impact of benchmarking, public reporting, and pay-for-performance on pediatric critical care. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Setting: Pediatric intensive care units in California. Subjects: Medical directors of pediatric intensive care units. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Self-administered questionnaire and a semi-structured phone interview from 16 pediatric intensive care unit medical directors. All data were anonymized before review. Standard methods for identifying and agreeing on themes in transcribed interviews were applied. Seventy-three percent of California pediatric intensive care unit medical directors agree that benchmarking improves patient outcomes but are undecided whether public reporting and pay-for-performance improve healthcare quality. They are wary of the validity of data used to generate these performance measures and are discouraged by the time and costs required to collect data for standard performance outcomes (severity-adjusted pediatric intensive care unit mortality). Leadership opinions appear potentially "dynamic" in multiple domains and across each of the measures assessed. Conclusions: Pediatric intensive care unit medical directors sometimes express contradictory opinions about the merits of shared benchmarking efforts and express concerns across a range of logistic, methodological, and policy issues. These findings raise fundamental questions about how to create clinical performance standards that facilitate quality improvement in the face of a seriously divided constituency. Further, we propose that pediatric intensive care unit medical directors play more active roles in the development, implementation, and communication of shared state-wide data collection.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalPediatric Critical Care Medicine
Volume12
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2011

Fingerprint

Incentive Reimbursement
Physician Executives
Benchmarking
Pediatric Intensive Care Units
Interviews
Surveys and Questionnaires
Quality of Health Care
Critical Care
Quality Improvement
Cross-Sectional Studies
Communication
Pediatrics
Costs and Cost Analysis
Mortality

Keywords

  • benchmarking
  • healthcare quality
  • pay-for-performance
  • pediatric critical care
  • public reporting

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

@article{06c86f3397274c7dbd1a1f76a1f8b4b8,
title = "Benchmarking, public reporting, and pay-for-performance: A mixed-methods survey of California pediatric intensive care unit medical directors",
abstract = "Objectives: We sought to assess the attitudes of pediatric intensive care unit medical directors in California regarding the need for, the validity of, and the potential impact of benchmarking, public reporting, and pay-for-performance on pediatric critical care. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Setting: Pediatric intensive care units in California. Subjects: Medical directors of pediatric intensive care units. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Self-administered questionnaire and a semi-structured phone interview from 16 pediatric intensive care unit medical directors. All data were anonymized before review. Standard methods for identifying and agreeing on themes in transcribed interviews were applied. Seventy-three percent of California pediatric intensive care unit medical directors agree that benchmarking improves patient outcomes but are undecided whether public reporting and pay-for-performance improve healthcare quality. They are wary of the validity of data used to generate these performance measures and are discouraged by the time and costs required to collect data for standard performance outcomes (severity-adjusted pediatric intensive care unit mortality). Leadership opinions appear potentially {"}dynamic{"} in multiple domains and across each of the measures assessed. Conclusions: Pediatric intensive care unit medical directors sometimes express contradictory opinions about the merits of shared benchmarking efforts and express concerns across a range of logistic, methodological, and policy issues. These findings raise fundamental questions about how to create clinical performance standards that facilitate quality improvement in the face of a seriously divided constituency. Further, we propose that pediatric intensive care unit medical directors play more active roles in the development, implementation, and communication of shared state-wide data collection.",
keywords = "benchmarking, healthcare quality, pay-for-performance, pediatric critical care, public reporting",
author = "Natale, {JoAnne E} and Joseph, {Jill G} and Honomichl, {Ryan D.} and Bazanni, {Lianna G.} and Kagawa, {Kimie J.} and Marcin, {James P}",
year = "2011",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1097/PCC.0b013e3181fe2e26",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
journal = "Pediatric Critical Care Medicine",
issn = "1529-7535",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Benchmarking, public reporting, and pay-for-performance

T2 - A mixed-methods survey of California pediatric intensive care unit medical directors

AU - Natale, JoAnne E

AU - Joseph, Jill G

AU - Honomichl, Ryan D.

AU - Bazanni, Lianna G.

AU - Kagawa, Kimie J.

AU - Marcin, James P

PY - 2011/11

Y1 - 2011/11

N2 - Objectives: We sought to assess the attitudes of pediatric intensive care unit medical directors in California regarding the need for, the validity of, and the potential impact of benchmarking, public reporting, and pay-for-performance on pediatric critical care. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Setting: Pediatric intensive care units in California. Subjects: Medical directors of pediatric intensive care units. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Self-administered questionnaire and a semi-structured phone interview from 16 pediatric intensive care unit medical directors. All data were anonymized before review. Standard methods for identifying and agreeing on themes in transcribed interviews were applied. Seventy-three percent of California pediatric intensive care unit medical directors agree that benchmarking improves patient outcomes but are undecided whether public reporting and pay-for-performance improve healthcare quality. They are wary of the validity of data used to generate these performance measures and are discouraged by the time and costs required to collect data for standard performance outcomes (severity-adjusted pediatric intensive care unit mortality). Leadership opinions appear potentially "dynamic" in multiple domains and across each of the measures assessed. Conclusions: Pediatric intensive care unit medical directors sometimes express contradictory opinions about the merits of shared benchmarking efforts and express concerns across a range of logistic, methodological, and policy issues. These findings raise fundamental questions about how to create clinical performance standards that facilitate quality improvement in the face of a seriously divided constituency. Further, we propose that pediatric intensive care unit medical directors play more active roles in the development, implementation, and communication of shared state-wide data collection.

AB - Objectives: We sought to assess the attitudes of pediatric intensive care unit medical directors in California regarding the need for, the validity of, and the potential impact of benchmarking, public reporting, and pay-for-performance on pediatric critical care. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Setting: Pediatric intensive care units in California. Subjects: Medical directors of pediatric intensive care units. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Self-administered questionnaire and a semi-structured phone interview from 16 pediatric intensive care unit medical directors. All data were anonymized before review. Standard methods for identifying and agreeing on themes in transcribed interviews were applied. Seventy-three percent of California pediatric intensive care unit medical directors agree that benchmarking improves patient outcomes but are undecided whether public reporting and pay-for-performance improve healthcare quality. They are wary of the validity of data used to generate these performance measures and are discouraged by the time and costs required to collect data for standard performance outcomes (severity-adjusted pediatric intensive care unit mortality). Leadership opinions appear potentially "dynamic" in multiple domains and across each of the measures assessed. Conclusions: Pediatric intensive care unit medical directors sometimes express contradictory opinions about the merits of shared benchmarking efforts and express concerns across a range of logistic, methodological, and policy issues. These findings raise fundamental questions about how to create clinical performance standards that facilitate quality improvement in the face of a seriously divided constituency. Further, we propose that pediatric intensive care unit medical directors play more active roles in the development, implementation, and communication of shared state-wide data collection.

KW - benchmarking

KW - healthcare quality

KW - pay-for-performance

KW - pediatric critical care

KW - public reporting

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=81155124247&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=81155124247&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/PCC.0b013e3181fe2e26

DO - 10.1097/PCC.0b013e3181fe2e26

M3 - Article

C2 - 21057357

AN - SCOPUS:81155124247

VL - 12

JO - Pediatric Critical Care Medicine

JF - Pediatric Critical Care Medicine

SN - 1529-7535

IS - 6

ER -