The California Hospital Outcomes Project

how useful is California's report card for quality improvement?

J. A. Rainwater, Patrick S Romano, D. M. Antonius

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

52 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Hospital report cards have proliferated in the 1990s but remain controversial because risk-adjusted outcomes measures are complex and have uncertain validity. Despite this controversy, little is known about their value and impact. METHODS: A two-stage survey of hospital leaders in California was undertaken in September 1996 and July 1997 to explore how the 1996 reports and data from the California Hospital Outcomes Project (CHOP) were used to improve organizations' performance. In the first stage, a questionnaire was mailed to the chief executive officer of each hospital in the report. In the second stage, a stratified random sample of the respondents who indicated a willingness to provide further information was interviewed. RESULTS: Thirty-nine interviews were completed, representing 87% yield after replacing informants who failed to return six messages. About three-quarters of the interviewees found some aspect of the CHOP report to be useful, especially for benchmarking performance, improving ICD-9-CM (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification) coding, and educating physicians about documentation and clinical pathways. The most common criticisms were that the reports were not timely and described death rates without providing practical information about the process of care. DISCUSSION: Although the 1996 CHOP reports and data were widely disseminated within hospitals, most reported uses did not directly affect the process of care for patients with acute myocardial infarction. This finding reflects two critical weaknesses of the project--nontimely data and lack of information about the process of care. Nevertheless, hospital quality managers recognize that public report cards are here to stay, and some carefully studied their outcomes data to identify areas for improvement.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)31-39
Number of pages9
JournalThe Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement
Volume24
Issue number1
StatePublished - 1998

Fingerprint

Quality Improvement
Hospital Chief Executive Officers
Benchmarking
Critical Pathways
International Classification of Diseases
Clinical Coding
Documentation
Patient Care
Myocardial Infarction
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Organizations
Interviews
Physicians
Mortality
Surveys and Questionnaires

Cite this

The California Hospital Outcomes Project : how useful is California's report card for quality improvement? / Rainwater, J. A.; Romano, Patrick S; Antonius, D. M.

In: The Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement, Vol. 24, No. 1, 1998, p. 31-39.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{0598c7c2ae87462e8394a156754e4a41,
title = "The California Hospital Outcomes Project: how useful is California's report card for quality improvement?",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Hospital report cards have proliferated in the 1990s but remain controversial because risk-adjusted outcomes measures are complex and have uncertain validity. Despite this controversy, little is known about their value and impact. METHODS: A two-stage survey of hospital leaders in California was undertaken in September 1996 and July 1997 to explore how the 1996 reports and data from the California Hospital Outcomes Project (CHOP) were used to improve organizations' performance. In the first stage, a questionnaire was mailed to the chief executive officer of each hospital in the report. In the second stage, a stratified random sample of the respondents who indicated a willingness to provide further information was interviewed. RESULTS: Thirty-nine interviews were completed, representing 87{\%} yield after replacing informants who failed to return six messages. About three-quarters of the interviewees found some aspect of the CHOP report to be useful, especially for benchmarking performance, improving ICD-9-CM (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification) coding, and educating physicians about documentation and clinical pathways. The most common criticisms were that the reports were not timely and described death rates without providing practical information about the process of care. DISCUSSION: Although the 1996 CHOP reports and data were widely disseminated within hospitals, most reported uses did not directly affect the process of care for patients with acute myocardial infarction. This finding reflects two critical weaknesses of the project--nontimely data and lack of information about the process of care. Nevertheless, hospital quality managers recognize that public report cards are here to stay, and some carefully studied their outcomes data to identify areas for improvement.",
author = "Rainwater, {J. A.} and Romano, {Patrick S} and Antonius, {D. M.}",
year = "1998",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "31--39",
journal = "Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety",
issn = "1553-7250",
publisher = "Joint Commission Resources, Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The California Hospital Outcomes Project

T2 - how useful is California's report card for quality improvement?

AU - Rainwater, J. A.

AU - Romano, Patrick S

AU - Antonius, D. M.

PY - 1998

Y1 - 1998

N2 - BACKGROUND: Hospital report cards have proliferated in the 1990s but remain controversial because risk-adjusted outcomes measures are complex and have uncertain validity. Despite this controversy, little is known about their value and impact. METHODS: A two-stage survey of hospital leaders in California was undertaken in September 1996 and July 1997 to explore how the 1996 reports and data from the California Hospital Outcomes Project (CHOP) were used to improve organizations' performance. In the first stage, a questionnaire was mailed to the chief executive officer of each hospital in the report. In the second stage, a stratified random sample of the respondents who indicated a willingness to provide further information was interviewed. RESULTS: Thirty-nine interviews were completed, representing 87% yield after replacing informants who failed to return six messages. About three-quarters of the interviewees found some aspect of the CHOP report to be useful, especially for benchmarking performance, improving ICD-9-CM (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification) coding, and educating physicians about documentation and clinical pathways. The most common criticisms were that the reports were not timely and described death rates without providing practical information about the process of care. DISCUSSION: Although the 1996 CHOP reports and data were widely disseminated within hospitals, most reported uses did not directly affect the process of care for patients with acute myocardial infarction. This finding reflects two critical weaknesses of the project--nontimely data and lack of information about the process of care. Nevertheless, hospital quality managers recognize that public report cards are here to stay, and some carefully studied their outcomes data to identify areas for improvement.

AB - BACKGROUND: Hospital report cards have proliferated in the 1990s but remain controversial because risk-adjusted outcomes measures are complex and have uncertain validity. Despite this controversy, little is known about their value and impact. METHODS: A two-stage survey of hospital leaders in California was undertaken in September 1996 and July 1997 to explore how the 1996 reports and data from the California Hospital Outcomes Project (CHOP) were used to improve organizations' performance. In the first stage, a questionnaire was mailed to the chief executive officer of each hospital in the report. In the second stage, a stratified random sample of the respondents who indicated a willingness to provide further information was interviewed. RESULTS: Thirty-nine interviews were completed, representing 87% yield after replacing informants who failed to return six messages. About three-quarters of the interviewees found some aspect of the CHOP report to be useful, especially for benchmarking performance, improving ICD-9-CM (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification) coding, and educating physicians about documentation and clinical pathways. The most common criticisms were that the reports were not timely and described death rates without providing practical information about the process of care. DISCUSSION: Although the 1996 CHOP reports and data were widely disseminated within hospitals, most reported uses did not directly affect the process of care for patients with acute myocardial infarction. This finding reflects two critical weaknesses of the project--nontimely data and lack of information about the process of care. Nevertheless, hospital quality managers recognize that public report cards are here to stay, and some carefully studied their outcomes data to identify areas for improvement.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031607933&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031607933&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - 31

EP - 39

JO - Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety

JF - Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety

SN - 1553-7250

IS - 1

ER -