Special Article
Influence of Cardiac-Surgery Performance Reports on Referral Practices and Access to Care — A Survey of Cardiovascular Specialists
N Engl J Med 1996; 335:251-256July 25, 1996
- Abstract
Background
Reports on the comparative performance of physicians are becoming increasingly common. Little is known, however, about the credibility of these reports with target audiences or their influence on the delivery of medical services.
Methods
Since 1992, Pennsylvania has published the Consumer Guide to Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery, which lists annual risk-adjusted mortality rates for all hospitals and surgeons providing such surgery in the state. In 1995, we surveyed a randomly selected sample of 50 percent of Pennsylvania cardiologists and cardiac surgeons to find out whether they were aware of the guide and, if so, to determine their views on its usefulness, limitations, and influence on providers.
Results
Eighty-two percent of the cardiologists and all the cardiac surgeons were aware of the guide. Only 10 percent of these respondents reported that its mortality rates were “very important” in assessing the performance of a cardiothoracic surgeon. Less than 10 percent reported discussing the guide with more than 10 percent of their patients who were candidates for a coronary-artery bypass graft (CABG). Eighty-seven percent of the cardiologists reported that the guide had a minimal influence or none on their referral recommendations. For both groups, the most important limitations of the guide were the absence of indicators of quality other than mortality (cited by 78 percent), inadequate risk adjustment (79 percent), and the unreliability of data provided by hospitals and surgeons (53 percent). Fifty-nine percent of the cardiologists reported increased difficulty in finding surgeons willing to perform CABG surgery in severely ill patients who required it, and 63 percent of the cardiac surgeons reported that they were less willing to operate on such patients.
Conclusions
The Consumer Guide to Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery has limited credibility among cardiovascular specialists. It has little influence on referral recommendations and may introduce a barrier to care for severely ill patients. If publicly released performance reports are intended to guide the choice of providers without impeding access to medical care, strengthening the collaborative process involving physicians may enhance the credibility and usefulness of the reports.
Media in This Article
Figure 1
Access to Cardiac Surgery for Severely Ill Patients in Need of Such Surgery, as Compared with Access Three Years Earlier.Table 1
Characteristics of the Study Population.Article Activity
- Article
The publication of “report cards” on the performance of health care providers is rapidly becoming both more common and more controversial.1-6 Until recently, data on the quality and outcome of care have not been routinely available to the public. Now, employers,7 patients,8,9 and insurers10 are all pressing for more and better publicly released data on outcomes and other indicators of the quality of care to guide a comparative evaluation of physicians, hospitals, and health plans.
Proponents of performance reports believe they will lead to the selection of high-quality providers and will motivate hospitals and health plans to improve the quality of care they provide.5,11-13 Others have noted that difficulties in adjusting for differences in case mix, problems with the reliability of the underlying clinical data, and random fluctuation of outcomes from year to year may undermine the validity and credibility of comparative data.14-19 If report cards are not adequately adjusted to account for variations in the risk of a poor outcome, physicians may avoid caring for chronically or severely ill patients, since such patients have a higher risk of an adverse outcome than do less seriously ill patients.
Since 1992, the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council, a state agency, has published four volumes of the Consumer Guide to Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery.20-23 Each volume lists, by surgeon and by hospital, the number of coronary-artery bypass graft (CABG) surgeries performed in a calendar year; the actual in-hospital mortality rate among patients treated by each surgeon and hospital; and the expected range of in-hospital mortality rates, derived from statistical models that take into account the severity of the patient's illness and coexisting conditions.24-27 Each surgeon and hospital receives a grade indicating whether the actual in-hospital mortality rate is significantly lower than the expected range, within the expected range, or higher than the expected range. The Pennsylvania report and a similar report in New York State28 represent the most sophisticated and widely publicized risk-adjusted data on the performance of hospitals and surgeons.
Despite the controversy surrounding the release of report cards, little is known about their importance to health care providers or the extent to which providers use such information to make referrals for their patients. We report here on a survey of two groups of Pennsylvania physicians who have critical roles with respect to CABG surgery: those who refer patients for possible surgery (cardiologists) and those who perform the surgery (cardiac surgeons).
Methods
Survey Sample
Through the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, which categorizes physicians according to the specialties they report, we identified all cardiologists residing in Pennsylvania as of December 1994. The Masterfile categorizes physicians according to the self-reported specialty, so those who make referrals for CABG surgery but do not identify themselves as cardiologists are excluded.29 We obtained a list of cardiothoracic surgeons who perform CABG surgery from volume III of the Consumer Guide to Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery.22 These sources identified 1214 cardiologists and 171 cardiothoracic surgeons. We used a random-selection procedure to choose approximately 50 percent of each group for the survey. Cardiologists were excluded if they had made no referrals for CABG surgery in the previous year. In both groups, physicians who had moved out of the state before the survey were excluded. We recorded the sex and age of all the physicians in the sample, as well as the board-certification status of all the cardiologists.
Survey Questionnaire
We designed a written questionnaire in which we first asked all eligible respondents to rate on a five-point Likert scale the importance of risk-adjusted mortality and clinical outcomes other than mortality in judging the quality of a cardiothoracic surgeon's performance. We then asked whether the respondent was aware of the Consumer Guide to Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery. If so, we asked a series of additional questions: “How important is the Consumer Guide to the assessment of the quality of a cardiothoracic surgeon?” “In what percentage of cases did you discuss the Consumer Guide ratings with patients?” and (to cardiologists only) “Has the Consumer Guide had any impact on your referral recommendation to patients?” We asked both groups of physicians to rate the importance of eight potential technical limitations of the Consumer Guide on a five-point Likert scale. We asked cardiologists what proportion of patients did not follow their initial referral recommendation and also asked several questions about practice characteristics that might have an effect on the cardiologist's choice of referral.
We also asked questions about changes over time in the level of access to care for severely ill patients. We asked cardiologists whether there was any change, as compared with three years ago, in the level of difficulty in finding a surgeon willing to operate on their most severely ill patients in need of CABG surgery. We asked cardiothoracic surgeons whether there was any change in their willingness to operate on such patients.
The survey was mailed to physicians during the period from April to September 1995. Three weeks after the first mailing, the physicians were sent a reminder, followed by up to two additional questionnaires. Nonrespondents were contacted by telephone to check their eligibility and determine whether they had received the questionnaire. A final questionnaire was sent to eligible nonrespondents.
Statistical Analysis
The analysis of responses to the questions about demographic and practice characteristics, important factors in assessing performance, and changes in access to care for severely ill patients included all the responses we received. The analysis of responses to questions about the content of the Consumer Guide and its influence was limited to responses from physicians reporting that they were aware of the guide. The significance of differences in responses was assessed by a chi-square test for binary response categories and by a Wilcoxon rank-sum test for pairwise comparisons of ordinal scaled responses. Two-tailed P values are reported for all comparisons. More than 95 percent of the respondents answered each question. Nonrespondents were excluded from the analyses.
Results
Table 1Table 1
Characteristics of the Study Population. shows the characteristics of the 697 physicians identified by our random-selection procedure (612 cardiologists and 85 cardiac surgeons). Responses were obtained from 434 physicians and from 18 surrogates (in the case of those who had moved or died), for a response rate of 65 percent. The response rate was 64 percent among the cardiologists and 74 percent among the cardiothoracic surgeons. A total of 110 cardiologists and 5 surgeons were ineligible because they were retired (32), were still in training (16), had moved out of state (14), had a subspecialty other than cardiology or cardiothoracic surgery (13), made no referrals for CABG (36), or had died (4). Completed questionnaires were received from 337 eligible physicians (279 cardiologists and 58 cardiac surgeons).Eighty-two percent of the cardiologists who responded and all the cardiac surgeons were aware of the Consumer Guide. Among the cardiologists who were unaware of it, a disproportionate number were less than 40 years of age (45 percent, vs. 22 percent of those who were aware of the guide; P<0.01), were not board-certified (35 percent vs. 13 percent, P<0.001), had referred fewer than 20 patients in the preceding year (43 percent vs. 27 percent, P=0.02), or had made referrals to a single surgeon in the preceding year (12 percent vs. 3 percent, P<0.01).
Table 2Table 2
Survey Respondents' Views on the Importance of Outcomes and the Consumer Guide in Assessing the Quality of a Cardiac Surgeon's Performance. summarizes the data on the importance of outcomes and the Consumer Guide. Eighty-four percent of the cardiologists identified risk-adjusted mortality in general as very or extremely important, as compared with only 60 percent of the cardiac surgeons (P<0.01). Eighty-seven percent of the cardiologists, but only 74 percent of the cardiac surgeons, thought clinical outcomes other than mortality were a very or extremely important indicator of the quality of a cardiac surgeon's performance (P<0.01).Most of the cardiologists and cardiac surgeons who were aware of the Consumer Guide (70 percent and 68 percent, respectively) reported that its risk-adjusted mortality ratings were not important or were minimally important in assessing the quality of a cardiothoracic surgeon's performance. The majority of the respondents never discussed the Consumer Guide with their patients undergoing CABG surgery. The large majority of the doctors who discussed the ratings reported doing so with less than 10 percent of their patients. Eighty-seven percent of the cardiologists reported that the Consumer Guide had a minimal influence on their referrals or none. Only 2 percent of the cardiologists responded that the Consumer Guide had a “significant impact” on their referrals. These responses did not vary significantly among the cardiologists according to any of the practice characteristics documented (Table 1).
Table 3Table 3
Limitations of the Consumer Guide Rated by Respondents as Very or Extremely Important. shows the potential limitations of the Consumer Guide that the respondents viewed as very or extremely important. The majority of both groups cited the following three problems as very important limitations: “mortality rates are an incomplete indicator of the quality of a surgeon's care,” “risk-adjustment methods are inadequate to compare surgeons fairly,” and “hospitals and surgeons can manipulate the data.”The cardiologists believed that their recommendation was generally the key factor in patients' decision making. Thirty-nine percent of the cardiologists reported that no patient rejected their initial referral recommendation. Another 56 percent reported that between 1 percent and 10 percent of patients did not follow their initial recommendation for a referral.
A majority of both cardiologists and cardiac surgeons reported increased difficulty in providing CABG surgery for the most severely ill patients who needed it (Figure 1Figure 1
Access to Cardiac Surgery for Severely Ill Patients in Need of Such Surgery, as Compared with Access Three Years Earlier.). Fifty-nine percent of the cardiologists reported that it had become more difficult or much more difficult to find a surgeon willing to perform cardiac surgery in severely ill patients in need of such surgery; only 10 percent reported that it had become less difficult or much less difficult. Sixty-three percent of the cardiac surgeons reported that they were less willing or much less willing to operate on the most severely ill patients; none were more willing to perform surgery in such patients.Discussion
Many health policy experts, employers, and consumer representatives consider reports on the outcomes of medical care a critical tool for improving the quality of care in our increasingly market-driven health care system.11-13 The Pennsylvania Consumer Guide to Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery is an important prototype of such reports and reflects the state of the art in most respects.25,28,30 Clinical data are abstracted from medical records according to a strict protocol. The council verifies diagnostic codes through computerized checks, manual validation, and independent medical-record audit in selected cases. The risk-adjustment model, which is based on the inclusion of multiple clinical risk factors,27 compares favorably with other risk-adjustment models.31,32 An advisory group of physicians, statisticians, and experts in quality measurement periodically reviews the process of data collection and reporting. The program has been revised in response to questions raised by hospital and provider groups.25 In spite of these favorable characteristics, the majority of the cardiovascular specialists in Pennsylvania believe that the Consumer Guide is not a clinically credible profile of the quality of care.
The most disturbing finding of our survey of cardiovascular specialists is their belief that access to care has decreased for severely ill patients who need CABG surgery. We lack evidence that these beliefs reflect actual problems with access to care. The results of other studies conflict on the issue of access. A recent study suggests that the movement of severely ill patients to an adjacent state has been a measurable effect of New York State's public reporting of data on CABG surgery.33 On the other hand, data from New York State also show an increase over time in the average severity of illness and the prevalence of coexisting conditions among patients undergoing CABG surgery,34 suggesting that access to care among severely ill patients may have been maintained.
It should be possible to add other measures of performance to data on mortality, thereby lowering one of the three barriers to acceptance of the Consumer Guide among cardiovascular specialists. The two remaining barriers are doubt about the risk-adjustment methods and concern about the reliability of the underlying clinical data. There are several possible explanations for these findings. First, cardiovascular specialists may be questioning the validity of the data in order to vent their displeasure at being monitored. Second, the risk-adjustment models may be excellent, but the respondents may not understand or appreciate them. Third, even though a risk-adjustment model may appropriately categorize large groups of patients, surgeons may believe that operating on severely ill patients increases the probability that they will receive a negative rating if their total caseload is too small to spread the risk adequately.35 We did not directly assess the providers' knowledge of the risk-adjustment methods used in the Consumer Guide. Finally, despite the extensive auditing of these data, providers may observe subtle biases in the reporting of clinical data. One study corroborates the notion that the collection of data for public release may provoke a biased recording of risk factors.14
It seems prudent to address providers' skepticism about performance reports for several reasons. First, our data support the clinical impression that cardiologists are highly influential in guiding their patients' choice of surgeon. If changing patients' choices is the goal, cardiologists are an important lever. Second, efforts to improve the quality of care for patients who undergo CABG surgery will surely be more successful if made in collaboration with cardiovascular specialists.36 Third, the development of a risk-adjustment system that has credibility among providers could reduce the tendency to avoid providing care for severely ill patients. The state of Pennsylvania has made an effort to incorporate feedback from cardiovascular specialists into the Consumer Guide. Our results suggest that this effort must continue and perhaps be expanded.
The Pennsylvania program is specifically intended to stimulate “consumer choice.” Who the consumer is, however, remains unclear. Is the consumer the patient, the physician, or the corporate benefits manager? Furthermore, how important is choice as a means of improving the quality of care? Our finding that many cardiologists refer patients to multiple surgeons and hospitals implies that referring providers have considerable latitude to shift referrals. However, the literature on the effects of performance reports yields no evidence of a systematic alteration in the choice of providers. Hannan et al. found that New York State's performance reports produced no change in “market share” among ranked surgeons or hospitals (with the exception of low-volume surgeons whose operating privileges had been suspended).30,37 A study of the effect of the Health Care Financing Administration's public release of data on hospital mortality rates found no appreciable redistribution of market share from hospitals with high mortality rates to those with low rates.38 A recent study from northern New England suggests that regional improvements in mortality rates may be achieved without public release of data on mortality.36
Our study has important limitations. We studied one program in one state. As with all surveys, we relied on self-reports of awareness, use, and changes in access. Although we tried to obtain a balanced sample, it may have been weighted toward specialists with negative views of the Consumer Guide. Also, our study does not address other possible consequences of the Pennsylvania program. Some patients may have used the Consumer Guide without the knowledge of their physicians. The guide may have prompted hospitals in Pennsylvania to change processes of care or curtail surgical privileges in order to reduce mortality rates among patients undergoing CABG surgery. Employers may have used the guide to pressure hospitals to take such action.
In summary, the Consumer Guide is an important prototype of a performance report that has been carefully developed and has many positive features. Nevertheless, cardiovascular specialists in Pennsylvania believe that statewide reporting of risk-adjusted mortality rates among patients undergoing CABG surgery has limited clinical credibility and limited usefulness as an indication of the quality of cardiac surgery; they believe, further, that the Consumer Guide may have adversely affected access to CABG surgery for the most severely ill patients who need it. Technical refinements alone may not be sufficient to address these doubts. If public performance reports are intended to guide decisions about medical care in the future, strengthening the collaborative process involving physicians may enhance their credibility and usefulness.
Supported by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Dr. Schneider was the recipient of a National Research Service Award (5T 32 PE 11001-8) from the Department of Health and Human Services.
We are indebted to John Ayanian, M.D., M.P.P., Paul Cleary, Ph.D., Ed Guadagnoli, Ph.D., and Paul Hauptman, M.D., for advice about the survey design; to Lee Beerman, M.D., president of the Pennsylvania Chapter of the American College of Cardiology, Gene Robak of the American Medical Association, and Ernest Sessa and the staff of the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council for their support; to the cardiovascular specialists who participated in the survey; and to Lisa Iezzoni, M.D., M.Sc., Anthony Komaroff, M.D., and Barbara McNeil, M.D., Ph.D., for their thoughtful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.
Source Information
From the Section on Health Services and Policy Research, Division of General Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital; the Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School; and the Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health — all in Boston.
Address reprint requests to Dr. Epstein at the Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, 25 Shattuck St., Parcel B, 1st Fl., Boston, MA 02115.
- References
References
1
Epstein A . Performance reports on quality -- prototypes, problems, and prospects. N Engl J Med 1995;333:57-61
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline2
Annual report of the California Hospital Outcomes Project. Vol. I. Sacramento: California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, 1993.
3
Cleveland-area hospital quality outcome measurement and patient satisfaction report. Cleveland: Quality Information Management Corporation, 1994.
4
Report card on health care. Minneapolis: Medica, 1994.
5
General Accounting Office. “Report cards” are useful but significant issues need to be addressed. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1994. (Publication no. GAO/HEHS-94-219.)
6
Welch HG ,Miller ME ,Welch WP . Physician profiling: an analysis of inpatient practice patterns in Florida and Oregon. N Engl J Med 1994;330:607-612
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline7
Corrigan JM . How do purchasers develop and use performance measures? Med Care 1995;33:Suppl:JS18-JS24
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline8
Freudenheim M. People want more information for health choices, survey finds. New York Times. September 17, 1995:I38.
9
General Accounting Office. Health care: employers and individual consumers want additional information on quality. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1995. (Publication no. GAO/HEHS-95-201.)
10
Survey on outcomes management. New York: Foster Higgins, 1994.
11
Brook RH . Health care reform is on the way: do we want to compete on quality? Ann Intern Med 1994;120:84-86
Web of Science | Medline12
Topol EJ ,Califf RM . Scorecard cardiovascular medicine: its impact and future directions. Ann Intern Med 1994;120:65-70
Web of Science | Medline13
Health care report cards. New York Times. July 10, 1995:A12.
14
Green J ,Wintfeld N . Report cards on cardiac surgeons: assessing New York State's approach. N Engl J Med 1995;332:1229-1232
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline15
Iezzoni LI, ed. Risk adjustment for measuring health care outcomes. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Health Administration Press, 1994.
16
Jost TS . Health system reform: forward or backward with quality oversight? JAMA 1994;271:1508-1511
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline17
Kassirer JP . The use and abuse of practice profiles. N Engl J Med 1994;330:634-636
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline18
McNeil BJ ,Pedersen SH ,Gatsonis C . Current issues in profiling quality of care. Inquiry 1992;29:298-307
Web of Science | Medline19
Park RE ,Brook RH ,Kosecoff J , et al. Explaining variations in hospital death rates: randomness, severity of illness, quality of care. JAMA 1990;264:484-490
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline20
A consumer guide to coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Vol. I. 1990 Data. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council, 1992.
21
A consumer guide to coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Vol. II. 1991 Data. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council, 1994.
22
A consumer guide to coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Vol. III. 1992 Data. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council, 1994.
23
A consumer guide to coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Vol. IV. 1993 Data. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council, 1995.
24
Coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a technical report. Vol. I. 1990 Data. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council, 1992.
25
Coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a technical report. Vol. II. 1991 Data. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council, 1994.
26
Coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a technical report. Vol. III. 1992 Data. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council, 1994.
27
Coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a technical report. Vol. IV. 1993 Data. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council, 1995.
28
Hannan EL ,Kilburn H Jr ,O'Donnell JF ,Lukacik G ,Shields EP . Adult open heart surgery in New York State: an analysis of risk factors and hospital mortality rates. JAMA 1990;264:2768-2774
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline29
Grumbach K ,Becker SH ,Osborn EHS ,Bindman AB . The challenge of defining and counting generalist physicians: an analysis of Physician Masterfile data. Am J Public Health 1995;85:1402-1407
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline30
Hannan EL ,Kilburn H Jr ,Racz M ,Shields E ,Chassin M . Improving the outcomes of coronary artery bypass surgery in New York State. JAMA 1994;271:761-766
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline31
Parsonnet V ,Dean D ,Bernstein AD . A method of uniform stratification of risk for evaluating the results of surgery in acquired adult heart disease. Circulation 1989;79:Suppl I:I-332
Landon B, Iezzoni LI, Ash AS, et al. Judging hospitals by severity-adjusted mortality rates: the case of CABG surgery. Inquiry (in press).
33
Omoigui NA ,Miller DP ,Brown KJ , et al. Outmigration for coronary bypass surgery in an era of public dissemination of clinical outcomes. Circulation 1996;93:27-33
Web of Science | Medline34
Chassin MR ,Hannan EL ,DeBuono BA . Benefits and hazards of reporting medical outcomes publicly. N Engl J Med 1996;334:394-398
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline35
Asch DA ,Hershey JC . Why some health policies don't make sense at the bedside. Ann Intern Med 1995;122:846-850
Web of Science | Medline36
O'Connor GT ,Plume SK ,Olmstead EM , et al. A regional intervention to improve the hospital mortality associated with coronary artery bypass graft surgery. JAMA 1996;275:841-846
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline37
Hannan EL ,Siu AL ,Kumar D ,Kilburn H Jr ,Chassin MR . The decline in coronary artery bypass graft surgery mortality in New York State: the role of surgeon volume. JAMA 1995;273:209-213
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline38
Vladeck BC ,Goodwin EJ ,Myers LP ,Sinisi M . Consumers and hospital use: the HCFA “death list.“ Health Aff (Millwood) 1988;7:122-125
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (99)
Citing Articles
1
Hyunhoe Bae. (2012) Reducing Environmental Risks by Information Disclosure: Evidence in Residential Lead Paint Disclosure Rule. Journal of Policy Analysis and Managementn/a-n/a
CrossRef2
Ben Bridgewater, Bruce Keogh. (2011) Improving cardiac surgical practice through outcomes analysis. Aswan Heart Centre Science & Practice Series 2011:2, 13
CrossRef3
JoAnne E. Natale, Jill G. Joseph, Ryan D. Honomichl, Lianna G. Bazanni, Kimie J. Kagawa, James P. Marcin. (2011) Benchmarking, public reporting, and pay-for-performance: A mixed-methods survey of California pediatric intensive care unit medical directors. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine 12:6, e225-e232
CrossRef4
L. David Hillis, Peter K. Smith, Jeffrey L. Anderson, John A. Bittl, Charles R. Bridges, John G. Byrne, Joaquin E. Cigarroa, Verdi J. DiSesa, Loren F. Hiratzka, Adolph M. Hutter, Michael E. Jessen, Ellen C. Keeley, Stephen J. Lahey, Richard A. Lange, Martin J. London, Michael J. Mack, Manesh R. Patel, John D. Puskas, Joseph F. Sabik, Ola Selnes, David M. Shahian, Jeffrey C. Trost, Michael D. Winniford. (2011) 2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery. Journal of the American College of Cardiology
CrossRef5
Michael L. Barnett, Nancy L. Keating, Nicholas A. Christakis, A. James O’Malley, Bruce E. Landon. (2011) Reasons for Choice of Referral Physician Among Primary Care and Specialist Physicians. Journal of General Internal Medicine
CrossRef6
Robert O. Bonow, Pamela S. Douglas, Alfred E. Buxton, David J. Cohen, Jeptha P. Curtis, Elizabeth DeLong, Joseph P. Drozda, T. Bruce Ferguson, Paul A. Heidenreich, Robert C. Hendel, Frederick A. Masoudi, Eric D. Peterson, Allen J. Taylor. (2011) ACCF/AHA Methodology for the Development of Quality Measures for Cardiovascular Technology. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 58:14, 1517-1538
CrossRef7
A. M. Almoudaris, S. Clark, C. Vincent, O. Faiz. (2011) Establishing quality in colorectal surgery. Colorectal Disease 13:9, 961-973
CrossRef8
F. Moscone, E. Tosetti, G. Vittadini. (2011) Social interaction in patients’ hospital choice: evidence from Italy. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society)no-no
CrossRef9
David M. Shahian, Fred H. Edwards, Jeffrey P. Jacobs, Richard L. Prager, Sharon-Lise T. Normand, Cynthia M. Shewan, Sean M. O'Brien, Eric D. Peterson, Frederick L. Grover. (2011) Public Reporting of Cardiac Surgery Performance: Part 1—History, Rationale, Consequences. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 92:3, S2-S11
CrossRef10
Mark W. Friedberg, Gillian K. SteelFisher, Melinda Karp, Eric C. Schneider. (2011) Physician Groups’ Use of Data from Patient Experience Surveys. Journal of General Internal Medicine 26:5, 498-504
CrossRef11
S. W. Grant, A. D. Grayson, D. Purkayastha, S. D. Wilson, C. McCollum, . (2011) Logistic risk model for mortality following elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. British Journal of Surgery 98:5, 652-658
CrossRef12
Yijuan Chen. (2011) Why are health care report cards so bad (good)?. Journal of Health Economics 30:3, 575-590
CrossRef13
Laurent G. Glance, Mark Neuman, Elizabeth A. Martinez, Kenneth Y. Pauker, Richard P. Dutton. (2011) Performance Measurement at a “Tipping Point”. Anesthesia & Analgesia 112:4, 958-966
CrossRef14
Rachel M. Werner, R. Tamara Konetzka, Elizabeth A. Stuart, Daniel Polsky. (2011) Changes in Patient Sorting to Nursing Homes under Public Reporting: Improved Patient Matching or Provider Gaming?. Health Services Research 46:2, 555-571
CrossRef15
Justin Wang, Jason Hockenberry, Shin-Yi Chou, Muzhe Yang. (2011) Do bad report cards have consequences? Impacts of publicly reported provider quality information on the CABG market in Pennsylvania. Journal of Health Economics 30:2, 392-407
CrossRef16
Mathew S. Prime, Jonathan Palmer, Wasim S. Khan, Bennie G.P. Lindeque. (2011) The National Joint Registry of England and Wales. Orthopedics 34:2, 107-110
CrossRef17
Won Mo Jang, Sang Jun Eun, Chae-Eun Lee, Yoon Kim. (2011) Effect of Repeated Public Releases on Cesarean Section Rates. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health 44:1, 2
CrossRef18
Joseph J. Doyle, Steven M. Ewer, Todd H. Wagner. (2010) Returns to physician human capital: Evidence from patients randomized to physician teams. Journal of Health Economics 29:6, 866-882
CrossRef19
David M. Shahian. (2010) Public Reporting of Cardiac Surgery Outcomes-What Do We Know, What Can We Expect?. Journal of Cardiac Surgery 25:6, 710-712
CrossRef20
Karen Donelan, Sowmya R. Rao, Robert S. Rogers, Johanna R. Mailhot, Robert Galvin. (2010) Experience with Health Coach-Mediated Physician Referral in an Employed Insured Population. Journal of General Internal Medicine 25:10, 1071-1077
CrossRef21
Andrew J. Epstein. (2010) Effects of report cards on referral patterns to cardiac surgeons
. Journal of Health Economics 29:5, 718-731
CrossRef22
Chris D. Mann, Tom Palser, Chris D. Briggs, Iain Cameron, Myrrdin Rees, John Buckles, David P. Berry. (2010) A review of factors predicting perioperative death and early outcome in hepatopancreaticobiliary cancer surgery. HPB 12:6, 380-388
CrossRef23
Amresh D. Hanchate, Therese A. Stukel, John D. Birkmeyer, Arlene S. Ash. (2010) Surgery volume, quality of care and operative mortality in coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a re-examination using fixed-effects regression. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology 10:1-2, 16-32
CrossRef24
Kathleen J. Mullen, Richard G. Frank, Meredith B. Rosenthal. (2010) Can you get what you pay for? Pay-for-performance and the quality of healthcare providers. The RAND Journal of Economics 41:1, 64-91
CrossRef25
D. B. Mukamel, H. Ladd, D. L. Weimer, W. D. Spector, J. S. Zinn. (2009) Is There Evidence of Cream Skimming Among Nursing Homes Following the Publication of the Nursing Home Compare Report Card?. The Gerontologist 49:6, 793-802
CrossRef26
Martin Dietrich, Jörg Lindenmeier. (2009) Standardisierte Qualitätsinformationen und ihr Einfluss auf die Wahl von Leistungsanbietern – Ergebnisse einer empirischen Studie am Beispiel der Qualitätsberichte von Krankenhäusern. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft 79:7, 869-896
CrossRef27
Christiaan J. Lako, Pauline Rosenau. (2009) Demand-Driven Care and Hospital Choice. Dutch Health Policy Toward Demand-Driven Care: Results from a Survey into Hospital Choice. Health Care Analysis 17:1, 20-35
CrossRef28
Kevin C. Chung, Melissa J. Shauver. (2009) Measuring Quality in Health Care and Its Implications for Pay-For-Performance Initiatives. Hand Clinics 25:1, 71-81
CrossRef29
Kim F. Rhoads, Badrinath M. Konety, R. Adams Dudley. (2009) Performance Measurement, Public Reporting, and Pay-for-Performance. Urologic Clinics of North America 36:1, 37-48
CrossRef30
Gwyn Bevan, Richard Hamblin. (2009) Hitting and missing targets by ambulance services for emergency calls: effects of different systems of performance measurement within the UK. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 172:1, 161-190
CrossRef31
Minah Kang Kim, Jeongeun Kim. (2009) A Paradigm Shift in the Healthcare Delivery System with the Emergence of the 'Ambient Care' Environment. Journal of Korean Society of Medical Informatics 15:3, 313
CrossRef32
Veena Guru, C. David Naylor, Stephen E. Fremes, Kevin Teoh, Jack V. Tu. (2009) Publicly reported provider outcomes: The concerns of cardiac surgeons in a single-payer system. Canadian Journal of Cardiology 25:1, 33-38
CrossRef33
Dorry L. Segev, Richard E. Thompson, Jayme E. Locke, Christopher E. Simpkins, Paul J. Thuluvath, Robert A. Montgomery, Warren R. Maley. (2008) Prolonged Waiting Times for Liver Transplantation in Obese Patients. Annals of Surgery 248:5, 863-870
CrossRef34
Jean-Yves Dupuis. (2008) Predicting outcomes in cardiac surgery: risk stratification matters?. Current Opinion in Cardiology 23:6, 560-567
CrossRef35
Dana B. Mukamel, David L. Weimer, William D. Spector, Heather Ladd, Jacqueline S. Zinn. (2008) Publication of Quality Report Cards and Trends in Reported Quality Measures in Nursing Homes. Health Services Research 43:4, 1244-1262
CrossRef36
Renato A. Apolito, Mark A. Greenberg, Mark A. Menegus, April M. Lowe, Lynn A. Sleeper, Mark H. Goldberger, Joshua Remick, Martha J. Radford, Judith S. Hochman. (2008) Impact of the New York State Cardiac Surgery and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Reporting System on the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. American Heart Journal 155:2, 267-273
CrossRef37
Douglas C. Chang, Lauren A. Burwell, G. Marshall Lyon, Peter G. Pappas, Tom M. Chiller, Kathleen A. Wannemuehler, Scott K. Fridkin, Benjamin J. Park. (2008) Comparison of the Use of Administrative Data and an Active System for Surveillance of Invasive Aspergillosis • . Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 29:1, 25-30
CrossRef38
Jennifer A Meddings, Laurence F McMahon. (2008) Measuring Quality in Pay-for-Performance Programs. Disease Management & Health Outcomes 16:4, 205-216
CrossRef39
David Weil, Archon Fung, Mary Graham, Elena Fagotto. (2007) The effectiveness of regulatory disclosure policies. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 25:1, 155-181
CrossRef40
Gary Fanjiang, Ted Glahn, Hong Chang, William H. Rogers, Dana Gelb Safran. (2007) Providing Patients Web-based Data to Inform Physician Choice: If You Build It, Will They Come?. Journal of General Internal Medicine 22:10, 1463-1466
CrossRef41
Bruce E. Keogh, Benjamin Bridgewater. (2007) Toward Public Disclosure of Surgical Results: Experience of Cardiac Surgery in the United Kingdom. Thoracic Surgery Clinics 17:3, 403-411
CrossRef42
Jack V. Tu. (2007) Coronary artery bypass surgery: Why don't the wealthy choose the best hospitals?. American Heart Journal 154:2, 208-210
CrossRef43
Yue Li, Laurent G. Glance, Xueya Cai, Dana B. Mukamel. (2007) Are Patients With Coexisting Mental Disorders More Likely to Receive CABG Surgery From Low-Quality Cardiac Surgeons?. Medical Care 45:7, 587-593
CrossRef44
L. T. Huynh, P. A. Phillips, D. P. Chew. (2007) Improving the management of acute coronary syndromes in Australia: translating evidence to outcomes. Internal Medicine Journal 37:6, 412-415
CrossRef45
Ingrid Burger, Kathryn Schill, Steven Goodman. (2007) Disclosure of Individual Surgeon??s Performance Rates During Informed Consent. Annals of Surgery 245:4, 507-513
CrossRef46
David M. Shahian, Fred H. Edwards, Victor A. Ferraris, Constance K. Haan, Jeffrey B. Rich, Sharon-Lise T. Normand, Elizabeth R. DeLong, Sean M. O’Brien, Cynthia M. Shewan, Rachel S. Dokholyan, Eric D. Peterson. (2007) Quality Measurement in Adult Cardiac Surgery: Part 1—Conceptual Framework and Measure Selection. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 83:4, S3-S12
CrossRef47
Laurent G. Glance, Turner M. Osler, Dana B. Mukamel, Andrew W. Dick. (2007) Use of a Matching Algorithm to Evaluate Hospital Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Performance as an Alternative to Conventional Risk Adjustment. Medical Care 45:4, 292-299
CrossRef48
James W. Jones, Laurence B. McCullough. (2007) Caseload outcome credentialing: Taking from the have-nots. Journal of Vascular Surgery 45:1, 214-216
CrossRef49
Andrew Street. (2006) Future of quality measurement in the National Health Service. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 6:3, 245-248
CrossRef50
David L. Robinowitz, R. Adams Dudley. (2006) PUBLIC REPORTING OF PROVIDER PERFORMANCE: Can Its Impact Be Made Greater?. Annual Review of Public Health 27:1, 517-536
CrossRef51
Eileen R. Sherman, Kateri H. Heydon, Keith H. St. John, Eva Teszner, Susan L. Rettig, Sharon K. Alexander, Theoklis Z. Zaoutis, Susan E. Coffin. (2006) Administrative Data Fail to Accurately Identify Cases of Healthcare‐Associated Infection • . Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 27:4, 332-337
CrossRef52
Laurent G. Glance, Andrew Dick, Turner M. Osler, Yue Li, Dana B. Mukamel. (2006) Impact of Changing the Statistical Methodology on Hospital and Surgeon Ranking. Medical Care 44:4, 311-319
CrossRef53
Martin Nuttall, Jan van der Meulen, Mark Emberton. (2006) Charlson scores based on ICD-10 administrative data were valid in assessing comorbidity in patients undergoing urological cancer surgery. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 59:3, 265-273
CrossRef54
Anne Mason, Andrew Street. (2006) Publishing outcome data: is it an effective approach?. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 12:1, 37-48
CrossRef55
Wes Thompson, Hongwei Wang, Minge Xie, John Kolassa, Mangala Rajan, Chin-Lin Tseng, Stephen Crystal, Quanwu Zhang, Yehuda Vardi, Leonard Pogach, Monika M. Safford. (2005) Assessing Quality of Diabetes Care by Measuring Longitudinal Changes in Hemoglobin A1c in the Veterans Health Administration. Health Services Research 40:6p1, 1818-1835
CrossRef56
Silvana F. Marasco, Joseph E. Ibrahim, Justin Oakley. (2005) Public disclosure of surgeon-specific report cards: current status of the debate. ANZ Journal of Surgery 75:11, 1000-1004
CrossRef57
Veena Guru, Geoffrey M. Anderson, Stephen E. Fremes, Gerald T. O’Connor, Frederick L. Grover, Jack V. Tu. (2005) The identification and development of Canadian coronary artery bypass graft surgery quality indicators. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 130:5, 1257.e1-1257.e11
CrossRef58
Williams, Scott C., Schmaltz, Stephen P., Morton, David J., Koss, Richard G., Loeb, Jerod M., . (2005) Quality of Care in U.S. Hospitals as Reflected by Standardized Measures, 2002–2004. New England Journal of Medicine 353:3, 255-264
Full Text59
R. O’Loughlin, S. Allwright, J. Barry, A. Kelly, C. Teljeur. (2005) Using HIPE data as a research and planning tool: limitations and opportunities. Irish Journal of Medical Science 174:2, 40-45
CrossRef60
John F P Bridges, Avi Dor, Michael Grossman. (2005) A Wolf Dressed in Sheep???s Clothing. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 4:1, 55-64
CrossRef61
David M Cutler, Robert S Huckman, Mary Beth Landrum. (2004) The Role of Information in Medical Markets: An Analysis of Publicly Reported Outcomes in Cardiac Surgery. American Economic Review 94:2, 342-346
CrossRef62
Curtis E Margo. (2004) Quality care and practice variation: the roles of practice guidelines and public profiles. Survey of Ophthalmology 49:3, 359-371
CrossRef63
Patrick S. Romano, Hong Zhou. (2004) Do Well-Publicized Risk-Adjusted Outcomes Reports Affect Hospital Volume?. Medical Care 42:4, 367-377
CrossRef64
John M. Daly. (2004) Society of Surgical Oncology Presidential Address: Volume, Outcome, and Surgical Specialization. Annals of Surgical Oncology 11:2, 107-114
CrossRef65
Russell Mannion, Maria Goddard. (2004) General practitioners’ assessments of hospital quality and performance. Clinical Governance: An International Journal 9:1, 42-47
CrossRef66
Peter D. Le Roux, H. Richard Winn. 2004. Standards for Surgical Treatment of Cerebrovascular Disease, Circa 2000. , 1521-1546.
CrossRef67
Nicole Ketelaar, Marjan Faber, Signe Flottorp, Liv Helen Rygh, Katherine Deane, Martin Eccles, Nicole Ketelaar. 2003. The effectiveness of the public release of performance data in changing consumer, healthcare professional or organisational behaviour.. .
CrossRef68
N. G. Castle. (2003) Providing Outcomes Information to Nursing Homes: Can It Improve Quality of Care?. The Gerontologist 43:4, 483-492
CrossRef69
E. M. Russell, J. Bruce, Z. H. Krukowski. (2003) Systematic review of the quality of surgical mortality monitoring. British Journal of Surgery 90:5, 527-532
CrossRef70
Russell Mannion, Maria Goddard. (2003) Public disclosure of comparative clinical performance data: lessons from the Scottish experience. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 9:2, 277-286
CrossRef71
V. Mor, K. Berg, J. Angelelli, D. Gifford, J. Morris, T. Moore. (2003) The Quality of Quality Measurement in U.S. Nursing Homes. The Gerontologist 43:Supplement 2, 37-46
CrossRef72
Carolyn Clancy. (2003) Quality Improvement: Getting to How. Health Services Research 38:2, 509-513
CrossRef73
Vincent Mor, J. Angelelli, D. Gifford, J. Morris, T. Moore. (2003) Benchmarking and quality in residential and nursing homes: lessons from the US. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 18:3, 258-266
CrossRef74
Liane Soberman Ginsburg. (2003) Factors That Influence Line Managers' Perceptions of Hospital Performance Data. Health Services Research 38:1p1, 261-286
CrossRef75
David J. Spiegelhalter, Paul Aylin, Nicola G. Best, Stephen J. W. Evans, Gordon D. Murray. (2002) Commissioned analysis of surgical performance using routine data: lessons from the Bristol inquiry. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 165:2, 191-221
CrossRef76
Matthew K. Wynia, Deborah Zucker, Stacey Supran, Harry P. Selker. (2002) Patient Protection and Risk Selection: . Do Primary Care Physicians Encourage their Patients to Join or Avoid Capitated Health Plans According to the Patients' Health Status?. Journal of General Internal Medicine 17:1, 40-47
CrossRef77
David M. Shahian, Sharon-Lise Normand, David F. Torchiana, Stanley M. Lewis, John O. Pastore, Richard E. Kuntz, Paul I. Dreyer. (2001) Cardiac surgery report cards: comprehensive review and statistical critique11This review is an abridged version of a report submitted by the Massachusetts Cardiac Care Quality Commission to the Massachusetts Legislature, May 2001.. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 72:6, 2155-2168
CrossRef78
John
vretveit. (2001) Quality evaluation and indicator comparison in health care. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management 16:3, 229-241
CrossRef79
Helen Halpin Schauffler, Jennifer K Mordavsky. (2001) C
ONSUMER REPORTS IN HEALTH CARE : Do They Make a Difference?. Annual Review of Public Health 22:1, 69-89
CrossRef80
Jennifer Daley, William G. Henderson, Shukri F. Khuri. (2001) R
ISK -ADJUSTED SURGICAL OUTCOMES 1. Annual Review of Medicine 52:1, 275-287
CrossRef81
Gregory E. Simon, Catherine Barber, Howard G. Birnbaum, Richard G. Frank, Paul E. Greenberg, Robert M. Rose, Phillip S. Wang, Ronald C. Kessler. (2001) Depression and Work Productivity: The Comparative Costs of Treatment Versus Nontreatment. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 43:1, 2-9
CrossRef82
Eric D Peterson, Elizabeth R DeLong, Lawrence H Muhlbaier, Allison B Rosen, Hope E Buell, Catarina I Kiefe, Timothy F Kresowik. (2000) Challenges in comparing risk-adjusted bypass surgery mortality results. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 36:7, 2174-2184
CrossRef83
John D Birkmeyer. (2000) Should we regionalize major surgery? potential benefits and policy considerations11No competing interests declared.. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 190:3, 341-349
CrossRef84
Leigh Neumayer, Mary Mastin, Lana Vanderhoof, Douglas Hinson. (2000) Using the Veterans Administration National Surgical Quality Improvement Program to Improve Patient Outcomes. Journal of Surgical Research 88:1, 58-61
CrossRef85
Joshua H. Burack, Paul Impellizzeri, Peter Homel, Joseph N. Cunningham. (1999) Public reporting of surgical mortality: a survey of New York State cardiothoracic surgeons. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 68:4, 1195-1200
CrossRef86
Lawrence H. Cohn. (1999) What the cardiothoracic surgeon of the twenty-first century ought to be. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 118:4, 581-587
CrossRef87
Kim A. Eagle, Robert A. Guyton, Ravin Davidoff, Gordon A. Ewy, James Fonger, Timothy J. Gardner, John Parker Gott, Howard C. Herrmann, Robert A. Marlow, William C. Nugent, Gerald T. O’Connor, Thomas A. Orszulak, Richard E. Rieselbach, William L. Winters, Salim Yusuf, Raymond J. Gibbons, Joseph S. Alpert, Kim A. Eagle, Timothy J. Gardner, Arthur Garson, Gabriel Gregoratos, Richard O. Russell, Sidney C. Smith. (1999) ACC/AHA guidelines for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 34:4, 1262-1347
CrossRef88
Patrick S. Romano, Julie A. Rainwater, Deirdre Antonius. (1999) Grading the Graders. Medical Care 37:3, 295-305
CrossRef89
Benjamin Mozes, Liraz Olmer, Noya Galai, Elisheva Simchen. (1998) A national study of postoperative mortality associated with coronary artery bypass grafting in Israel. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 66:4, 1254-1262
CrossRef90
Jack E. Zimmerman, Douglas P. Wagner, Elizabeth A. Draper, Leslie Wright, Carlos Alzola, William A. Knaus. (1998) Evaluation of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III predictions of hospital mortality in an independent database. Critical Care Medicine 26:8, 1317-1326
CrossRef91
Michael Chernew, José J. Escarce. (1998) Consumer Response to Quality Information. Medical Care 36:7, 943-944
CrossRef92
Dana B. Mukamel, Alvin I. Mushlin. (1998) Quality of Care Information Makes a Difference. Medical Care 36:7, 945-954
CrossRef93
Walter T. Linde-Zwirble, Derek C. Angus. (1998) Can Scoring Systems Assess ICU Performance?. Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 13:4, 155-157
CrossRef94
Mark J. Sada, William J. French, David M. Carlisle, Nisha C. Chandra, Joel M. Gore, William J. Rogers. (1998) Influence of Payor on Use of Invasive Cardiac Procedures and Patient Outcome After Myocardial Infarction in the United States. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 31:7, 1474-1480
CrossRef95
Cephas P. Swamidoss, Sorin J. Brull, Gail Watrous, Paul G. Barash. (1998) Health-care Report Cards and Implications for Anesthesia. Anesthesiology 88:3, 809-819
CrossRef96
Lisa I. Iezzoni, Arlene S. Ash, Michael Shwartz, Bruce E. Landon, Yevgenia D. Mackiernan. (1998) Predicting In-Hospital Deaths from Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery. Medical Care 36:1, 28-39
CrossRef97
Jack V. Tu, Kathy Sykora, C.David Naylor. (1997) Assessing the Outcomes of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: How Many Risk Factors Are Enough?. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 30:5, 1317-1323
CrossRef98
(1997) Cardiac-Surgery Performance Reports. New England Journal of Medicine 336:6, 442-443
Full Text99
Blumenthal, David, , Epstein, Arnold M., . (1996) The Role of Physicians in the Future of Quality Management. New England Journal of Medicine 335:17, 1328-1332
Full Text
- Letters
