Methodological Issues in Public Reporting of Patient Perspectives on Hospital Quality

Judith K. Barr Sc.D. (Senior Scientist), Sara Banks Ph.D. (Senior Health Information Analyst), William J. Waters Ph.D. (Deputy Director), Marcia Petrillo M.A. (Chief Executive Officer)
{"title":"Methodological Issues in Public Reporting of Patient Perspectives on Hospital Quality","authors":"Judith K. Barr Sc.D. (Senior Scientist),&nbsp;Sara Banks Ph.D. (Senior Health Information Analyst),&nbsp;William J. Waters Ph.D. (Deputy Director),&nbsp;Marcia Petrillo M.A. (Chief Executive Officer)","doi":"10.1016/S1549-3741(04)30067-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Increasing attention is being focused on public reporting of patient satisfaction and experience with hospital care, both nationally and at the state level. Comparative reports on hospital patient satisfaction use a standard survey, but little is known about underlying methodological approaches for reporting these quality measures.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Literature, Web sites, and key informants were used to identify nine public reports. In-depth reviews were conducted to determine approaches to collecting, analyzing, and publicly reporting comparative data. Data were grouped into four analytic categories: survey, sampling, computation of scores, and reporting of scores.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The reports were similar in response rates and sampling procedures but differed in the number of hospitals included, the survey instrument, and survey procedure. The reports varied considerably in the techniques for computing hospital scores and decisions about reporting scores.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Reports from nine locales illustrate the decision making necessary to produce comparative reports on hospital patient satisfaction. Differences stem from decisions about the survey instrument and statistical decisions about how to interpret and report data. These issues should be clearly delineated as part of any public reporting process.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":84970,"journal":{"name":"Joint Commission journal on quality and safety","volume":"30 10","pages":"Pages 567-578"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S1549-3741(04)30067-5","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Joint Commission journal on quality and safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1549374104300675","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/11/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background

Increasing attention is being focused on public reporting of patient satisfaction and experience with hospital care, both nationally and at the state level. Comparative reports on hospital patient satisfaction use a standard survey, but little is known about underlying methodological approaches for reporting these quality measures.

Methods

Literature, Web sites, and key informants were used to identify nine public reports. In-depth reviews were conducted to determine approaches to collecting, analyzing, and publicly reporting comparative data. Data were grouped into four analytic categories: survey, sampling, computation of scores, and reporting of scores.

Results

The reports were similar in response rates and sampling procedures but differed in the number of hospitals included, the survey instrument, and survey procedure. The reports varied considerably in the techniques for computing hospital scores and decisions about reporting scores.

Conclusions

Reports from nine locales illustrate the decision making necessary to produce comparative reports on hospital patient satisfaction. Differences stem from decisions about the survey instrument and statistical decisions about how to interpret and report data. These issues should be clearly delineated as part of any public reporting process.

公开报告患者对医院质量看法的方法学问题
背景:在全国和州一级,越来越多的注意力集中在公开报告病人对医院护理的满意度和经验上。医院患者满意度的比较报告使用标准调查,但很少了解报告这些质量措施的基本方法方法。方法采用文献资料、网站资料和主要举报人资料对9份公开报告进行鉴定。进行了深入的审查,以确定收集、分析和公开报告比较数据的方法。数据分为四类分析:调查、抽样、计算分数和报告分数。结果两份报告的回复率和抽样方法相似,但在调查医院数量、调查工具和调查程序等方面存在差异。这些报告在计算医院分数的技术和关于报告分数的决定方面差异很大。结论来自9个地区的报告说明了制定医院患者满意度比较报告的决策必要性。差异源于对调查工具的决定和对如何解释和报告数据的统计决定。这些问题应作为任何公开报告程序的一部分予以明确说明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书