National hospital ratings systems share few common scores and may generate confusion instead of clarity

Matthew M. Austin, Ashish K. Jha, Patrick S Romano, Sara J. Singer, Timothy J. Vogus, Robert M. Wachter, Peter J. Pronovost

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

92 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Attempts to assess the quality and safety of hospitals have proliferated, including a growing number of consumer-directed hospital rating systems. However, relatively little is known about what these rating systems reveal. To better understand differences in hospital ratings, we compared four national rating systems. We designated "high" and "low" performers for each rating system and examined the overlap among rating systems and how hospital characteristics corresponded with performance on each. No hospital was rated as a high performer by all four national rating systems. Only 10 percent of the 844 hospitals rated as a high performer by one rating system were rated as a high performer by any of the other rating systems. The lack of agreement among the national hospital rating systems is likely explained by the fact that each system uses its own rating methods, has a different focus to its ratings, and stresses different measures of performance.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)423-430
Number of pages8
JournalHealth Affairs
Volume34
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2015

Fingerprint

Safety

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy

Cite this

Austin, M. M., Jha, A. K., Romano, P. S., Singer, S. J., Vogus, T. J., Wachter, R. M., & Pronovost, P. J. (2015). National hospital ratings systems share few common scores and may generate confusion instead of clarity. Health Affairs, 34(3), 423-430. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0201

National hospital ratings systems share few common scores and may generate confusion instead of clarity. / Austin, Matthew M.; Jha, Ashish K.; Romano, Patrick S; Singer, Sara J.; Vogus, Timothy J.; Wachter, Robert M.; Pronovost, Peter J.

In: Health Affairs, Vol. 34, No. 3, 2015, p. 423-430.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Austin, Matthew M. ; Jha, Ashish K. ; Romano, Patrick S ; Singer, Sara J. ; Vogus, Timothy J. ; Wachter, Robert M. ; Pronovost, Peter J. / National hospital ratings systems share few common scores and may generate confusion instead of clarity. In: Health Affairs. 2015 ; Vol. 34, No. 3. pp. 423-430.
@article{3294b94e946b4e669981ca5a23b00e7b,
title = "National hospital ratings systems share few common scores and may generate confusion instead of clarity",
abstract = "Attempts to assess the quality and safety of hospitals have proliferated, including a growing number of consumer-directed hospital rating systems. However, relatively little is known about what these rating systems reveal. To better understand differences in hospital ratings, we compared four national rating systems. We designated {"}high{"} and {"}low{"} performers for each rating system and examined the overlap among rating systems and how hospital characteristics corresponded with performance on each. No hospital was rated as a high performer by all four national rating systems. Only 10 percent of the 844 hospitals rated as a high performer by one rating system were rated as a high performer by any of the other rating systems. The lack of agreement among the national hospital rating systems is likely explained by the fact that each system uses its own rating methods, has a different focus to its ratings, and stresses different measures of performance.",
author = "Austin, {Matthew M.} and Jha, {Ashish K.} and Romano, {Patrick S} and Singer, {Sara J.} and Vogus, {Timothy J.} and Wachter, {Robert M.} and Pronovost, {Peter J.}",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0201",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "34",
pages = "423--430",
journal = "Health Affairs",
issn = "0278-2715",
publisher = "Project Hope",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - National hospital ratings systems share few common scores and may generate confusion instead of clarity

AU - Austin, Matthew M.

AU - Jha, Ashish K.

AU - Romano, Patrick S

AU - Singer, Sara J.

AU - Vogus, Timothy J.

AU - Wachter, Robert M.

AU - Pronovost, Peter J.

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Attempts to assess the quality and safety of hospitals have proliferated, including a growing number of consumer-directed hospital rating systems. However, relatively little is known about what these rating systems reveal. To better understand differences in hospital ratings, we compared four national rating systems. We designated "high" and "low" performers for each rating system and examined the overlap among rating systems and how hospital characteristics corresponded with performance on each. No hospital was rated as a high performer by all four national rating systems. Only 10 percent of the 844 hospitals rated as a high performer by one rating system were rated as a high performer by any of the other rating systems. The lack of agreement among the national hospital rating systems is likely explained by the fact that each system uses its own rating methods, has a different focus to its ratings, and stresses different measures of performance.

AB - Attempts to assess the quality and safety of hospitals have proliferated, including a growing number of consumer-directed hospital rating systems. However, relatively little is known about what these rating systems reveal. To better understand differences in hospital ratings, we compared four national rating systems. We designated "high" and "low" performers for each rating system and examined the overlap among rating systems and how hospital characteristics corresponded with performance on each. No hospital was rated as a high performer by all four national rating systems. Only 10 percent of the 844 hospitals rated as a high performer by one rating system were rated as a high performer by any of the other rating systems. The lack of agreement among the national hospital rating systems is likely explained by the fact that each system uses its own rating methods, has a different focus to its ratings, and stresses different measures of performance.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84924623627&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84924623627&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0201

DO - 10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0201

M3 - Article

C2 - 25732492

AN - SCOPUS:84924623627

VL - 34

SP - 423

EP - 430

JO - Health Affairs

JF - Health Affairs

SN - 0278-2715

IS - 3

ER -