Grading the graders

How hospitals in California and New York perceive and interpret their report cards

Patrick S Romano, Julie A. Rainwater, Deirdre Antonius

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

42 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND. Concerns about quality of care are increasing as hospitals struggle to lower costs. Hospital report cards are controversial, but little is known about their impact. OBJECTIVES. To determine whether recent hospital report cards are viewed more favorably than pioneering federal efforts; whether a report based on clinical data is viewed more favorably than one based on administrative data; and whether attitudes toward report cards are related to hospital characteristics. DESIGN. Mailed survey of chief executives at 374 California hospitals and 31 New York hospitals listed in report cards on myocardial infarction and coronary bypass mortality. SUBJECTS. Two-hundred-and-seventy-four hospitals in California (73.3% response) and 27 in New York (87.1% response). California hospitals were categorized on ownership, size, occupancy, risk-adjusted mortality, teaching status, patient volume, and surgical capability. MEASURES. Number of hospital units that received or discussed the report card, ratings of its quality, perceptions of its usefulness, and knowledge of its methods. RESULTS. In both states, report cards were widely disseminated within hospitals. The mean quality rating was higher (P = 0.0074) in New York than in California; New York respondents appeared to be more knowledgeable about key methods. One or more hospital characteristics was associated with each outcome measure. Leaders at high-mortality hospitals were especially critical and did not find the report useful, despite limited understanding of its methods. CONCLUSIONS. Recent hospital report cards were rated better than pioneering federal efforts. A report based on clinical data was rated better, understood better, and disseminated more often to key staff than one that was based on administrative data. Barriers to constructive use of outcomes data persist, especially at high mortality hospitals.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)295-305
Number of pages11
JournalMedical Care
Volume37
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1999

Fingerprint

grading
mortality
Hospital Mortality
Hospital Units
rating
Mortality
Ownership
Quality of Health Care
Teaching
Myocardial Infarction
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Costs and Cost Analysis

Keywords

  • Hospital mortality
  • Quality of care
  • Report cards

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health(social science)
  • Health Professions(all)

Cite this

Grading the graders : How hospitals in California and New York perceive and interpret their report cards. / Romano, Patrick S; Rainwater, Julie A.; Antonius, Deirdre.

In: Medical Care, Vol. 37, No. 3, 03.1999, p. 295-305.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Romano, Patrick S ; Rainwater, Julie A. ; Antonius, Deirdre. / Grading the graders : How hospitals in California and New York perceive and interpret their report cards. In: Medical Care. 1999 ; Vol. 37, No. 3. pp. 295-305.
@article{1fd7362c49334657877f0cc632f1dfb7,
title = "Grading the graders: How hospitals in California and New York perceive and interpret their report cards",
abstract = "BACKGROUND. Concerns about quality of care are increasing as hospitals struggle to lower costs. Hospital report cards are controversial, but little is known about their impact. OBJECTIVES. To determine whether recent hospital report cards are viewed more favorably than pioneering federal efforts; whether a report based on clinical data is viewed more favorably than one based on administrative data; and whether attitudes toward report cards are related to hospital characteristics. DESIGN. Mailed survey of chief executives at 374 California hospitals and 31 New York hospitals listed in report cards on myocardial infarction and coronary bypass mortality. SUBJECTS. Two-hundred-and-seventy-four hospitals in California (73.3{\%} response) and 27 in New York (87.1{\%} response). California hospitals were categorized on ownership, size, occupancy, risk-adjusted mortality, teaching status, patient volume, and surgical capability. MEASURES. Number of hospital units that received or discussed the report card, ratings of its quality, perceptions of its usefulness, and knowledge of its methods. RESULTS. In both states, report cards were widely disseminated within hospitals. The mean quality rating was higher (P = 0.0074) in New York than in California; New York respondents appeared to be more knowledgeable about key methods. One or more hospital characteristics was associated with each outcome measure. Leaders at high-mortality hospitals were especially critical and did not find the report useful, despite limited understanding of its methods. CONCLUSIONS. Recent hospital report cards were rated better than pioneering federal efforts. A report based on clinical data was rated better, understood better, and disseminated more often to key staff than one that was based on administrative data. Barriers to constructive use of outcomes data persist, especially at high mortality hospitals.",
keywords = "Hospital mortality, Quality of care, Report cards",
author = "Romano, {Patrick S} and Rainwater, {Julie A.} and Deirdre Antonius",
year = "1999",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1097/00005650-199903000-00009",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "37",
pages = "295--305",
journal = "Medical Care",
issn = "0025-7079",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Grading the graders

T2 - How hospitals in California and New York perceive and interpret their report cards

AU - Romano, Patrick S

AU - Rainwater, Julie A.

AU - Antonius, Deirdre

PY - 1999/3

Y1 - 1999/3

N2 - BACKGROUND. Concerns about quality of care are increasing as hospitals struggle to lower costs. Hospital report cards are controversial, but little is known about their impact. OBJECTIVES. To determine whether recent hospital report cards are viewed more favorably than pioneering federal efforts; whether a report based on clinical data is viewed more favorably than one based on administrative data; and whether attitudes toward report cards are related to hospital characteristics. DESIGN. Mailed survey of chief executives at 374 California hospitals and 31 New York hospitals listed in report cards on myocardial infarction and coronary bypass mortality. SUBJECTS. Two-hundred-and-seventy-four hospitals in California (73.3% response) and 27 in New York (87.1% response). California hospitals were categorized on ownership, size, occupancy, risk-adjusted mortality, teaching status, patient volume, and surgical capability. MEASURES. Number of hospital units that received or discussed the report card, ratings of its quality, perceptions of its usefulness, and knowledge of its methods. RESULTS. In both states, report cards were widely disseminated within hospitals. The mean quality rating was higher (P = 0.0074) in New York than in California; New York respondents appeared to be more knowledgeable about key methods. One or more hospital characteristics was associated with each outcome measure. Leaders at high-mortality hospitals were especially critical and did not find the report useful, despite limited understanding of its methods. CONCLUSIONS. Recent hospital report cards were rated better than pioneering federal efforts. A report based on clinical data was rated better, understood better, and disseminated more often to key staff than one that was based on administrative data. Barriers to constructive use of outcomes data persist, especially at high mortality hospitals.

AB - BACKGROUND. Concerns about quality of care are increasing as hospitals struggle to lower costs. Hospital report cards are controversial, but little is known about their impact. OBJECTIVES. To determine whether recent hospital report cards are viewed more favorably than pioneering federal efforts; whether a report based on clinical data is viewed more favorably than one based on administrative data; and whether attitudes toward report cards are related to hospital characteristics. DESIGN. Mailed survey of chief executives at 374 California hospitals and 31 New York hospitals listed in report cards on myocardial infarction and coronary bypass mortality. SUBJECTS. Two-hundred-and-seventy-four hospitals in California (73.3% response) and 27 in New York (87.1% response). California hospitals were categorized on ownership, size, occupancy, risk-adjusted mortality, teaching status, patient volume, and surgical capability. MEASURES. Number of hospital units that received or discussed the report card, ratings of its quality, perceptions of its usefulness, and knowledge of its methods. RESULTS. In both states, report cards were widely disseminated within hospitals. The mean quality rating was higher (P = 0.0074) in New York than in California; New York respondents appeared to be more knowledgeable about key methods. One or more hospital characteristics was associated with each outcome measure. Leaders at high-mortality hospitals were especially critical and did not find the report useful, despite limited understanding of its methods. CONCLUSIONS. Recent hospital report cards were rated better than pioneering federal efforts. A report based on clinical data was rated better, understood better, and disseminated more often to key staff than one that was based on administrative data. Barriers to constructive use of outcomes data persist, especially at high mortality hospitals.

KW - Hospital mortality

KW - Quality of care

KW - Report cards

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033090933&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033090933&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00005650-199903000-00009

DO - 10.1097/00005650-199903000-00009

M3 - Article

VL - 37

SP - 295

EP - 305

JO - Medical Care

JF - Medical Care

SN - 0025-7079

IS - 3

ER -