Consumer engagement to maximise the impact of public reporting of hospital performance data in Australiapuper
Background: Public performance reporting (PPR) of hospitals has been proposed as a mechanism for improving quality of care by providing transparency and accountability, increasing hospital quality and safety and informing consumer choice. In Australia, national mandatory PPR for public hospitals, in...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Autor*in: |
Khic Prang [verfasserIn] Rachel Canaway [verfasserIn] David Dunt [verfasserIn] Margaret Kelaher [verfasserIn] |
---|
Format: |
E-Artikel |
---|---|
Sprache: |
Englisch |
Erschienen: |
2019 |
---|
Schlagwörter: |
---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: International Journal of Integrated Care - Ubiquity Press, 2016, 19(2019), 4 |
---|---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:19 ; year:2019 ; number:4 |
Links: |
---|
DOI / URN: |
10.5334/ijic.s3627 |
---|
Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ037462075 |
---|
LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
001 | DOAJ037462075 | ||
003 | DE-627 | ||
005 | 20230308010549.0 | ||
007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
008 | 230227s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
024 | 7 | |a 10.5334/ijic.s3627 |2 doi | |
035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ037462075 | ||
035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJ93b7a113945c4e43b34d9cfe177d68ae | ||
040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
041 | |a eng | ||
050 | 0 | |a R5-920 | |
100 | 0 | |a Khic Prang |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
245 | 1 | 0 | |a Consumer engagement to maximise the impact of public reporting of hospital performance data in Australiapuper |
264 | 1 | |c 2019 | |
336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
520 | |a Background: Public performance reporting (PPR) of hospitals has been proposed as a mechanism for improving quality of care by providing transparency and accountability, increasing hospital quality and safety and informing consumer choice. In Australia, national mandatory PPR for public hospitals, including measures of cancer waiting times, was introduced in 2011. All public hospitals are now required to provide data to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare which is then reported on the MyHospitals website Public performance reporting is not mandatory for private hospitals, although some participate on a voluntary basis. Prior research indicates that PPR has limited impact on consumers’ healthcare decision-making. This may be due to the content, design and implementation of PPR which are not explicitly tailored to meet the needs and demands of consumers. Engaging with consumers to address these issues could lead to greater impact and utility of PPR. Aims: The aims of this study were to assess whether PPR of hospital data was used by patients with breast, bowel or lung cancer to inform hospital choice; factors that influence their hospital choice; the level of demands for PPR; barriers to using PPR; and how PPR could be improved to meet their information needs. Methods: A national cross-sectional questionnaire was conducted among 243 patients with breast, bowel and lung cancer who attended a public or private hospital as a private patient for elective surgery between 1st January and 31st December 2016. Patients were recruited via the Australian Government Department of Human Services using Medicare Benefits Schedules codes. Descriptive and conventional qualitative content analyses were conducted. Results: Ninety-four percent of patients attended a private hospital for elective surgery. Almost half of the patients chose their preferred hospital. Choice of hospital was primarily influenced by the patient’s specialist (89%) and not PPR data (92% unaware). Although patients considered PPR to be important (70%), they did not want to see the information. They preferred their general practitioners to tell them about it (40%). Barriers to patients’ use of PPR included lack of awareness (74%) and relevance (11%). Patients considered cost of surgery (59%), complications (58%) and success rates (57%) important information to be reported. They preferred the data to be reported at the individual doctor level (48%). Four themes were identified from the open-ended questions: 1) decision-making factors; 2) data credibility; 3) unmet information needs; and 4) unintended consequences. Discussion: Our findings suggest that PPR of hospital data had limited impact on patients’ choice of hospital. Greater dissemination of PPR is required to increase awareness. Furthermore, many patients expressed interest in using PPR to support their healthcare decision-making, however current content and format of PPR do not meet their information needs. PPR information must be patient-centred with an emphasis on making the data meaningful, interpretable and relevant. To maximise value in PPR and minimise unintended consequences, ongoing guidance from consumers are necessary. | ||
650 | 4 | |a performance reporting | |
650 | 4 | |a consumer | |
650 | 4 | |a quality of care | |
653 | 0 | |a Medicine (General) | |
700 | 0 | |a Rachel Canaway |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 0 | |a David Dunt |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
700 | 0 | |a Margaret Kelaher |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t International Journal of Integrated Care |d Ubiquity Press, 2016 |g 19(2019), 4 |w (DE-627)36955499X |w (DE-600)2119289-3 |x 15684156 |7 nnns |
773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:19 |g year:2019 |g number:4 |
856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.s3627 |z kostenfrei |
856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/93b7a113945c4e43b34d9cfe177d68ae |z kostenfrei |
856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://www.ijic.org/articles/5383 |z kostenfrei |
856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/1568-4156 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_31 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2005 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2009 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2011 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2055 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2111 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
951 | |a AR | ||
952 | |d 19 |j 2019 |e 4 |
author_variant |
k p kp r c rc d d dd m k mk |
---|---|
matchkey_str |
article:15684156:2019----::osmrnaeetoaiiehipcopbirprigfoptlef |
hierarchy_sort_str |
2019 |
callnumber-subject-code |
R |
publishDate |
2019 |
allfields |
10.5334/ijic.s3627 doi (DE-627)DOAJ037462075 (DE-599)DOAJ93b7a113945c4e43b34d9cfe177d68ae DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R5-920 Khic Prang verfasserin aut Consumer engagement to maximise the impact of public reporting of hospital performance data in Australiapuper 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Public performance reporting (PPR) of hospitals has been proposed as a mechanism for improving quality of care by providing transparency and accountability, increasing hospital quality and safety and informing consumer choice. In Australia, national mandatory PPR for public hospitals, including measures of cancer waiting times, was introduced in 2011. All public hospitals are now required to provide data to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare which is then reported on the MyHospitals website Public performance reporting is not mandatory for private hospitals, although some participate on a voluntary basis. Prior research indicates that PPR has limited impact on consumers’ healthcare decision-making. This may be due to the content, design and implementation of PPR which are not explicitly tailored to meet the needs and demands of consumers. Engaging with consumers to address these issues could lead to greater impact and utility of PPR. Aims: The aims of this study were to assess whether PPR of hospital data was used by patients with breast, bowel or lung cancer to inform hospital choice; factors that influence their hospital choice; the level of demands for PPR; barriers to using PPR; and how PPR could be improved to meet their information needs. Methods: A national cross-sectional questionnaire was conducted among 243 patients with breast, bowel and lung cancer who attended a public or private hospital as a private patient for elective surgery between 1st January and 31st December 2016. Patients were recruited via the Australian Government Department of Human Services using Medicare Benefits Schedules codes. Descriptive and conventional qualitative content analyses were conducted. Results: Ninety-four percent of patients attended a private hospital for elective surgery. Almost half of the patients chose their preferred hospital. Choice of hospital was primarily influenced by the patient’s specialist (89%) and not PPR data (92% unaware). Although patients considered PPR to be important (70%), they did not want to see the information. They preferred their general practitioners to tell them about it (40%). Barriers to patients’ use of PPR included lack of awareness (74%) and relevance (11%). Patients considered cost of surgery (59%), complications (58%) and success rates (57%) important information to be reported. They preferred the data to be reported at the individual doctor level (48%). Four themes were identified from the open-ended questions: 1) decision-making factors; 2) data credibility; 3) unmet information needs; and 4) unintended consequences. Discussion: Our findings suggest that PPR of hospital data had limited impact on patients’ choice of hospital. Greater dissemination of PPR is required to increase awareness. Furthermore, many patients expressed interest in using PPR to support their healthcare decision-making, however current content and format of PPR do not meet their information needs. PPR information must be patient-centred with an emphasis on making the data meaningful, interpretable and relevant. To maximise value in PPR and minimise unintended consequences, ongoing guidance from consumers are necessary. performance reporting consumer quality of care Medicine (General) Rachel Canaway verfasserin aut David Dunt verfasserin aut Margaret Kelaher verfasserin aut In International Journal of Integrated Care Ubiquity Press, 2016 19(2019), 4 (DE-627)36955499X (DE-600)2119289-3 15684156 nnns volume:19 year:2019 number:4 https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.s3627 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/93b7a113945c4e43b34d9cfe177d68ae kostenfrei https://www.ijic.org/articles/5383 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1568-4156 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 19 2019 4 |
spelling |
10.5334/ijic.s3627 doi (DE-627)DOAJ037462075 (DE-599)DOAJ93b7a113945c4e43b34d9cfe177d68ae DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R5-920 Khic Prang verfasserin aut Consumer engagement to maximise the impact of public reporting of hospital performance data in Australiapuper 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Public performance reporting (PPR) of hospitals has been proposed as a mechanism for improving quality of care by providing transparency and accountability, increasing hospital quality and safety and informing consumer choice. In Australia, national mandatory PPR for public hospitals, including measures of cancer waiting times, was introduced in 2011. All public hospitals are now required to provide data to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare which is then reported on the MyHospitals website Public performance reporting is not mandatory for private hospitals, although some participate on a voluntary basis. Prior research indicates that PPR has limited impact on consumers’ healthcare decision-making. This may be due to the content, design and implementation of PPR which are not explicitly tailored to meet the needs and demands of consumers. Engaging with consumers to address these issues could lead to greater impact and utility of PPR. Aims: The aims of this study were to assess whether PPR of hospital data was used by patients with breast, bowel or lung cancer to inform hospital choice; factors that influence their hospital choice; the level of demands for PPR; barriers to using PPR; and how PPR could be improved to meet their information needs. Methods: A national cross-sectional questionnaire was conducted among 243 patients with breast, bowel and lung cancer who attended a public or private hospital as a private patient for elective surgery between 1st January and 31st December 2016. Patients were recruited via the Australian Government Department of Human Services using Medicare Benefits Schedules codes. Descriptive and conventional qualitative content analyses were conducted. Results: Ninety-four percent of patients attended a private hospital for elective surgery. Almost half of the patients chose their preferred hospital. Choice of hospital was primarily influenced by the patient’s specialist (89%) and not PPR data (92% unaware). Although patients considered PPR to be important (70%), they did not want to see the information. They preferred their general practitioners to tell them about it (40%). Barriers to patients’ use of PPR included lack of awareness (74%) and relevance (11%). Patients considered cost of surgery (59%), complications (58%) and success rates (57%) important information to be reported. They preferred the data to be reported at the individual doctor level (48%). Four themes were identified from the open-ended questions: 1) decision-making factors; 2) data credibility; 3) unmet information needs; and 4) unintended consequences. Discussion: Our findings suggest that PPR of hospital data had limited impact on patients’ choice of hospital. Greater dissemination of PPR is required to increase awareness. Furthermore, many patients expressed interest in using PPR to support their healthcare decision-making, however current content and format of PPR do not meet their information needs. PPR information must be patient-centred with an emphasis on making the data meaningful, interpretable and relevant. To maximise value in PPR and minimise unintended consequences, ongoing guidance from consumers are necessary. performance reporting consumer quality of care Medicine (General) Rachel Canaway verfasserin aut David Dunt verfasserin aut Margaret Kelaher verfasserin aut In International Journal of Integrated Care Ubiquity Press, 2016 19(2019), 4 (DE-627)36955499X (DE-600)2119289-3 15684156 nnns volume:19 year:2019 number:4 https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.s3627 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/93b7a113945c4e43b34d9cfe177d68ae kostenfrei https://www.ijic.org/articles/5383 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1568-4156 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 19 2019 4 |
allfields_unstemmed |
10.5334/ijic.s3627 doi (DE-627)DOAJ037462075 (DE-599)DOAJ93b7a113945c4e43b34d9cfe177d68ae DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R5-920 Khic Prang verfasserin aut Consumer engagement to maximise the impact of public reporting of hospital performance data in Australiapuper 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Public performance reporting (PPR) of hospitals has been proposed as a mechanism for improving quality of care by providing transparency and accountability, increasing hospital quality and safety and informing consumer choice. In Australia, national mandatory PPR for public hospitals, including measures of cancer waiting times, was introduced in 2011. All public hospitals are now required to provide data to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare which is then reported on the MyHospitals website Public performance reporting is not mandatory for private hospitals, although some participate on a voluntary basis. Prior research indicates that PPR has limited impact on consumers’ healthcare decision-making. This may be due to the content, design and implementation of PPR which are not explicitly tailored to meet the needs and demands of consumers. Engaging with consumers to address these issues could lead to greater impact and utility of PPR. Aims: The aims of this study were to assess whether PPR of hospital data was used by patients with breast, bowel or lung cancer to inform hospital choice; factors that influence their hospital choice; the level of demands for PPR; barriers to using PPR; and how PPR could be improved to meet their information needs. Methods: A national cross-sectional questionnaire was conducted among 243 patients with breast, bowel and lung cancer who attended a public or private hospital as a private patient for elective surgery between 1st January and 31st December 2016. Patients were recruited via the Australian Government Department of Human Services using Medicare Benefits Schedules codes. Descriptive and conventional qualitative content analyses were conducted. Results: Ninety-four percent of patients attended a private hospital for elective surgery. Almost half of the patients chose their preferred hospital. Choice of hospital was primarily influenced by the patient’s specialist (89%) and not PPR data (92% unaware). Although patients considered PPR to be important (70%), they did not want to see the information. They preferred their general practitioners to tell them about it (40%). Barriers to patients’ use of PPR included lack of awareness (74%) and relevance (11%). Patients considered cost of surgery (59%), complications (58%) and success rates (57%) important information to be reported. They preferred the data to be reported at the individual doctor level (48%). Four themes were identified from the open-ended questions: 1) decision-making factors; 2) data credibility; 3) unmet information needs; and 4) unintended consequences. Discussion: Our findings suggest that PPR of hospital data had limited impact on patients’ choice of hospital. Greater dissemination of PPR is required to increase awareness. Furthermore, many patients expressed interest in using PPR to support their healthcare decision-making, however current content and format of PPR do not meet their information needs. PPR information must be patient-centred with an emphasis on making the data meaningful, interpretable and relevant. To maximise value in PPR and minimise unintended consequences, ongoing guidance from consumers are necessary. performance reporting consumer quality of care Medicine (General) Rachel Canaway verfasserin aut David Dunt verfasserin aut Margaret Kelaher verfasserin aut In International Journal of Integrated Care Ubiquity Press, 2016 19(2019), 4 (DE-627)36955499X (DE-600)2119289-3 15684156 nnns volume:19 year:2019 number:4 https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.s3627 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/93b7a113945c4e43b34d9cfe177d68ae kostenfrei https://www.ijic.org/articles/5383 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1568-4156 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 19 2019 4 |
allfieldsGer |
10.5334/ijic.s3627 doi (DE-627)DOAJ037462075 (DE-599)DOAJ93b7a113945c4e43b34d9cfe177d68ae DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R5-920 Khic Prang verfasserin aut Consumer engagement to maximise the impact of public reporting of hospital performance data in Australiapuper 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Public performance reporting (PPR) of hospitals has been proposed as a mechanism for improving quality of care by providing transparency and accountability, increasing hospital quality and safety and informing consumer choice. In Australia, national mandatory PPR for public hospitals, including measures of cancer waiting times, was introduced in 2011. All public hospitals are now required to provide data to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare which is then reported on the MyHospitals website Public performance reporting is not mandatory for private hospitals, although some participate on a voluntary basis. Prior research indicates that PPR has limited impact on consumers’ healthcare decision-making. This may be due to the content, design and implementation of PPR which are not explicitly tailored to meet the needs and demands of consumers. Engaging with consumers to address these issues could lead to greater impact and utility of PPR. Aims: The aims of this study were to assess whether PPR of hospital data was used by patients with breast, bowel or lung cancer to inform hospital choice; factors that influence their hospital choice; the level of demands for PPR; barriers to using PPR; and how PPR could be improved to meet their information needs. Methods: A national cross-sectional questionnaire was conducted among 243 patients with breast, bowel and lung cancer who attended a public or private hospital as a private patient for elective surgery between 1st January and 31st December 2016. Patients were recruited via the Australian Government Department of Human Services using Medicare Benefits Schedules codes. Descriptive and conventional qualitative content analyses were conducted. Results: Ninety-four percent of patients attended a private hospital for elective surgery. Almost half of the patients chose their preferred hospital. Choice of hospital was primarily influenced by the patient’s specialist (89%) and not PPR data (92% unaware). Although patients considered PPR to be important (70%), they did not want to see the information. They preferred their general practitioners to tell them about it (40%). Barriers to patients’ use of PPR included lack of awareness (74%) and relevance (11%). Patients considered cost of surgery (59%), complications (58%) and success rates (57%) important information to be reported. They preferred the data to be reported at the individual doctor level (48%). Four themes were identified from the open-ended questions: 1) decision-making factors; 2) data credibility; 3) unmet information needs; and 4) unintended consequences. Discussion: Our findings suggest that PPR of hospital data had limited impact on patients’ choice of hospital. Greater dissemination of PPR is required to increase awareness. Furthermore, many patients expressed interest in using PPR to support their healthcare decision-making, however current content and format of PPR do not meet their information needs. PPR information must be patient-centred with an emphasis on making the data meaningful, interpretable and relevant. To maximise value in PPR and minimise unintended consequences, ongoing guidance from consumers are necessary. performance reporting consumer quality of care Medicine (General) Rachel Canaway verfasserin aut David Dunt verfasserin aut Margaret Kelaher verfasserin aut In International Journal of Integrated Care Ubiquity Press, 2016 19(2019), 4 (DE-627)36955499X (DE-600)2119289-3 15684156 nnns volume:19 year:2019 number:4 https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.s3627 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/93b7a113945c4e43b34d9cfe177d68ae kostenfrei https://www.ijic.org/articles/5383 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1568-4156 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 19 2019 4 |
allfieldsSound |
10.5334/ijic.s3627 doi (DE-627)DOAJ037462075 (DE-599)DOAJ93b7a113945c4e43b34d9cfe177d68ae DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R5-920 Khic Prang verfasserin aut Consumer engagement to maximise the impact of public reporting of hospital performance data in Australiapuper 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Public performance reporting (PPR) of hospitals has been proposed as a mechanism for improving quality of care by providing transparency and accountability, increasing hospital quality and safety and informing consumer choice. In Australia, national mandatory PPR for public hospitals, including measures of cancer waiting times, was introduced in 2011. All public hospitals are now required to provide data to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare which is then reported on the MyHospitals website Public performance reporting is not mandatory for private hospitals, although some participate on a voluntary basis. Prior research indicates that PPR has limited impact on consumers’ healthcare decision-making. This may be due to the content, design and implementation of PPR which are not explicitly tailored to meet the needs and demands of consumers. Engaging with consumers to address these issues could lead to greater impact and utility of PPR. Aims: The aims of this study were to assess whether PPR of hospital data was used by patients with breast, bowel or lung cancer to inform hospital choice; factors that influence their hospital choice; the level of demands for PPR; barriers to using PPR; and how PPR could be improved to meet their information needs. Methods: A national cross-sectional questionnaire was conducted among 243 patients with breast, bowel and lung cancer who attended a public or private hospital as a private patient for elective surgery between 1st January and 31st December 2016. Patients were recruited via the Australian Government Department of Human Services using Medicare Benefits Schedules codes. Descriptive and conventional qualitative content analyses were conducted. Results: Ninety-four percent of patients attended a private hospital for elective surgery. Almost half of the patients chose their preferred hospital. Choice of hospital was primarily influenced by the patient’s specialist (89%) and not PPR data (92% unaware). Although patients considered PPR to be important (70%), they did not want to see the information. They preferred their general practitioners to tell them about it (40%). Barriers to patients’ use of PPR included lack of awareness (74%) and relevance (11%). Patients considered cost of surgery (59%), complications (58%) and success rates (57%) important information to be reported. They preferred the data to be reported at the individual doctor level (48%). Four themes were identified from the open-ended questions: 1) decision-making factors; 2) data credibility; 3) unmet information needs; and 4) unintended consequences. Discussion: Our findings suggest that PPR of hospital data had limited impact on patients’ choice of hospital. Greater dissemination of PPR is required to increase awareness. Furthermore, many patients expressed interest in using PPR to support their healthcare decision-making, however current content and format of PPR do not meet their information needs. PPR information must be patient-centred with an emphasis on making the data meaningful, interpretable and relevant. To maximise value in PPR and minimise unintended consequences, ongoing guidance from consumers are necessary. performance reporting consumer quality of care Medicine (General) Rachel Canaway verfasserin aut David Dunt verfasserin aut Margaret Kelaher verfasserin aut In International Journal of Integrated Care Ubiquity Press, 2016 19(2019), 4 (DE-627)36955499X (DE-600)2119289-3 15684156 nnns volume:19 year:2019 number:4 https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.s3627 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/93b7a113945c4e43b34d9cfe177d68ae kostenfrei https://www.ijic.org/articles/5383 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1568-4156 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 19 2019 4 |
language |
English |
source |
In International Journal of Integrated Care 19(2019), 4 volume:19 year:2019 number:4 |
sourceStr |
In International Journal of Integrated Care 19(2019), 4 volume:19 year:2019 number:4 |
format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
institution |
findex.gbv.de |
topic_facet |
performance reporting consumer quality of care Medicine (General) |
isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
container_title |
International Journal of Integrated Care |
authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Khic Prang @@aut@@ Rachel Canaway @@aut@@ David Dunt @@aut@@ Margaret Kelaher @@aut@@ |
publishDateDaySort_date |
2019-01-01T00:00:00Z |
hierarchy_top_id |
36955499X |
id |
DOAJ037462075 |
language_de |
englisch |
fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ037462075</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230308010549.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.5334/ijic.s3627</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ037462075</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ93b7a113945c4e43b34d9cfe177d68ae</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R5-920</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Khic Prang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Consumer engagement to maximise the impact of public reporting of hospital performance data in Australiapuper</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background: Public performance reporting (PPR) of hospitals has been proposed as a mechanism for improving quality of care by providing transparency and accountability, increasing hospital quality and safety and informing consumer choice. In Australia, national mandatory PPR for public hospitals, including measures of cancer waiting times, was introduced in 2011. All public hospitals are now required to provide data to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare which is then reported on the MyHospitals website Public performance reporting is not mandatory for private hospitals, although some participate on a voluntary basis. Prior research indicates that PPR has limited impact on consumers’ healthcare decision-making. This may be due to the content, design and implementation of PPR which are not explicitly tailored to meet the needs and demands of consumers. Engaging with consumers to address these issues could lead to greater impact and utility of PPR. Aims: The aims of this study were to assess whether PPR of hospital data was used by patients with breast, bowel or lung cancer to inform hospital choice; factors that influence their hospital choice; the level of demands for PPR; barriers to using PPR; and how PPR could be improved to meet their information needs. Methods: A national cross-sectional questionnaire was conducted among 243 patients with breast, bowel and lung cancer who attended a public or private hospital as a private patient for elective surgery between 1st January and 31st December 2016. Patients were recruited via the Australian Government Department of Human Services using Medicare Benefits Schedules codes. Descriptive and conventional qualitative content analyses were conducted. Results: Ninety-four percent of patients attended a private hospital for elective surgery. Almost half of the patients chose their preferred hospital. Choice of hospital was primarily influenced by the patient’s specialist (89%) and not PPR data (92% unaware). Although patients considered PPR to be important (70%), they did not want to see the information. They preferred their general practitioners to tell them about it (40%). Barriers to patients’ use of PPR included lack of awareness (74%) and relevance (11%). Patients considered cost of surgery (59%), complications (58%) and success rates (57%) important information to be reported. They preferred the data to be reported at the individual doctor level (48%). Four themes were identified from the open-ended questions: 1) decision-making factors; 2) data credibility; 3) unmet information needs; and 4) unintended consequences. Discussion: Our findings suggest that PPR of hospital data had limited impact on patients’ choice of hospital. Greater dissemination of PPR is required to increase awareness. Furthermore, many patients expressed interest in using PPR to support their healthcare decision-making, however current content and format of PPR do not meet their information needs. PPR information must be patient-centred with an emphasis on making the data meaningful, interpretable and relevant. To maximise value in PPR and minimise unintended consequences, ongoing guidance from consumers are necessary.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">performance reporting</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">consumer</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">quality of care</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rachel Canaway</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">David Dunt</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Margaret Kelaher</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">International Journal of Integrated Care</subfield><subfield code="d">Ubiquity Press, 2016</subfield><subfield code="g">19(2019), 4</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)36955499X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2119289-3</subfield><subfield code="x">15684156</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:19</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.s3627</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/93b7a113945c4e43b34d9cfe177d68ae</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.ijic.org/articles/5383</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1568-4156</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">19</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="e">4</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
callnumber-first |
R - Medicine |
author |
Khic Prang |
spellingShingle |
Khic Prang misc R5-920 misc performance reporting misc consumer misc quality of care misc Medicine (General) Consumer engagement to maximise the impact of public reporting of hospital performance data in Australiapuper |
authorStr |
Khic Prang |
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)36955499X |
format |
electronic Article |
delete_txt_mv |
keep |
author_role |
aut aut aut aut |
collection |
DOAJ |
remote_str |
true |
callnumber-label |
R5-920 |
illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
issn |
15684156 |
topic_title |
R5-920 Consumer engagement to maximise the impact of public reporting of hospital performance data in Australiapuper performance reporting consumer quality of care |
topic |
misc R5-920 misc performance reporting misc consumer misc quality of care misc Medicine (General) |
topic_unstemmed |
misc R5-920 misc performance reporting misc consumer misc quality of care misc Medicine (General) |
topic_browse |
misc R5-920 misc performance reporting misc consumer misc quality of care misc Medicine (General) |
format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
hierarchy_parent_title |
International Journal of Integrated Care |
hierarchy_parent_id |
36955499X |
hierarchy_top_title |
International Journal of Integrated Care |
isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)36955499X (DE-600)2119289-3 |
title |
Consumer engagement to maximise the impact of public reporting of hospital performance data in Australiapuper |
ctrlnum |
(DE-627)DOAJ037462075 (DE-599)DOAJ93b7a113945c4e43b34d9cfe177d68ae |
title_full |
Consumer engagement to maximise the impact of public reporting of hospital performance data in Australiapuper |
author_sort |
Khic Prang |
journal |
International Journal of Integrated Care |
journalStr |
International Journal of Integrated Care |
callnumber-first-code |
R |
lang_code |
eng |
isOA_bool |
true |
recordtype |
marc |
publishDateSort |
2019 |
contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
author_browse |
Khic Prang Rachel Canaway David Dunt Margaret Kelaher |
container_volume |
19 |
class |
R5-920 |
format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
author-letter |
Khic Prang |
doi_str_mv |
10.5334/ijic.s3627 |
author2-role |
verfasserin |
title_sort |
consumer engagement to maximise the impact of public reporting of hospital performance data in australiapuper |
callnumber |
R5-920 |
title_auth |
Consumer engagement to maximise the impact of public reporting of hospital performance data in Australiapuper |
abstract |
Background: Public performance reporting (PPR) of hospitals has been proposed as a mechanism for improving quality of care by providing transparency and accountability, increasing hospital quality and safety and informing consumer choice. In Australia, national mandatory PPR for public hospitals, including measures of cancer waiting times, was introduced in 2011. All public hospitals are now required to provide data to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare which is then reported on the MyHospitals website Public performance reporting is not mandatory for private hospitals, although some participate on a voluntary basis. Prior research indicates that PPR has limited impact on consumers’ healthcare decision-making. This may be due to the content, design and implementation of PPR which are not explicitly tailored to meet the needs and demands of consumers. Engaging with consumers to address these issues could lead to greater impact and utility of PPR. Aims: The aims of this study were to assess whether PPR of hospital data was used by patients with breast, bowel or lung cancer to inform hospital choice; factors that influence their hospital choice; the level of demands for PPR; barriers to using PPR; and how PPR could be improved to meet their information needs. Methods: A national cross-sectional questionnaire was conducted among 243 patients with breast, bowel and lung cancer who attended a public or private hospital as a private patient for elective surgery between 1st January and 31st December 2016. Patients were recruited via the Australian Government Department of Human Services using Medicare Benefits Schedules codes. Descriptive and conventional qualitative content analyses were conducted. Results: Ninety-four percent of patients attended a private hospital for elective surgery. Almost half of the patients chose their preferred hospital. Choice of hospital was primarily influenced by the patient’s specialist (89%) and not PPR data (92% unaware). Although patients considered PPR to be important (70%), they did not want to see the information. They preferred their general practitioners to tell them about it (40%). Barriers to patients’ use of PPR included lack of awareness (74%) and relevance (11%). Patients considered cost of surgery (59%), complications (58%) and success rates (57%) important information to be reported. They preferred the data to be reported at the individual doctor level (48%). Four themes were identified from the open-ended questions: 1) decision-making factors; 2) data credibility; 3) unmet information needs; and 4) unintended consequences. Discussion: Our findings suggest that PPR of hospital data had limited impact on patients’ choice of hospital. Greater dissemination of PPR is required to increase awareness. Furthermore, many patients expressed interest in using PPR to support their healthcare decision-making, however current content and format of PPR do not meet their information needs. PPR information must be patient-centred with an emphasis on making the data meaningful, interpretable and relevant. To maximise value in PPR and minimise unintended consequences, ongoing guidance from consumers are necessary. |
abstractGer |
Background: Public performance reporting (PPR) of hospitals has been proposed as a mechanism for improving quality of care by providing transparency and accountability, increasing hospital quality and safety and informing consumer choice. In Australia, national mandatory PPR for public hospitals, including measures of cancer waiting times, was introduced in 2011. All public hospitals are now required to provide data to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare which is then reported on the MyHospitals website Public performance reporting is not mandatory for private hospitals, although some participate on a voluntary basis. Prior research indicates that PPR has limited impact on consumers’ healthcare decision-making. This may be due to the content, design and implementation of PPR which are not explicitly tailored to meet the needs and demands of consumers. Engaging with consumers to address these issues could lead to greater impact and utility of PPR. Aims: The aims of this study were to assess whether PPR of hospital data was used by patients with breast, bowel or lung cancer to inform hospital choice; factors that influence their hospital choice; the level of demands for PPR; barriers to using PPR; and how PPR could be improved to meet their information needs. Methods: A national cross-sectional questionnaire was conducted among 243 patients with breast, bowel and lung cancer who attended a public or private hospital as a private patient for elective surgery between 1st January and 31st December 2016. Patients were recruited via the Australian Government Department of Human Services using Medicare Benefits Schedules codes. Descriptive and conventional qualitative content analyses were conducted. Results: Ninety-four percent of patients attended a private hospital for elective surgery. Almost half of the patients chose their preferred hospital. Choice of hospital was primarily influenced by the patient’s specialist (89%) and not PPR data (92% unaware). Although patients considered PPR to be important (70%), they did not want to see the information. They preferred their general practitioners to tell them about it (40%). Barriers to patients’ use of PPR included lack of awareness (74%) and relevance (11%). Patients considered cost of surgery (59%), complications (58%) and success rates (57%) important information to be reported. They preferred the data to be reported at the individual doctor level (48%). Four themes were identified from the open-ended questions: 1) decision-making factors; 2) data credibility; 3) unmet information needs; and 4) unintended consequences. Discussion: Our findings suggest that PPR of hospital data had limited impact on patients’ choice of hospital. Greater dissemination of PPR is required to increase awareness. Furthermore, many patients expressed interest in using PPR to support their healthcare decision-making, however current content and format of PPR do not meet their information needs. PPR information must be patient-centred with an emphasis on making the data meaningful, interpretable and relevant. To maximise value in PPR and minimise unintended consequences, ongoing guidance from consumers are necessary. |
abstract_unstemmed |
Background: Public performance reporting (PPR) of hospitals has been proposed as a mechanism for improving quality of care by providing transparency and accountability, increasing hospital quality and safety and informing consumer choice. In Australia, national mandatory PPR for public hospitals, including measures of cancer waiting times, was introduced in 2011. All public hospitals are now required to provide data to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare which is then reported on the MyHospitals website Public performance reporting is not mandatory for private hospitals, although some participate on a voluntary basis. Prior research indicates that PPR has limited impact on consumers’ healthcare decision-making. This may be due to the content, design and implementation of PPR which are not explicitly tailored to meet the needs and demands of consumers. Engaging with consumers to address these issues could lead to greater impact and utility of PPR. Aims: The aims of this study were to assess whether PPR of hospital data was used by patients with breast, bowel or lung cancer to inform hospital choice; factors that influence their hospital choice; the level of demands for PPR; barriers to using PPR; and how PPR could be improved to meet their information needs. Methods: A national cross-sectional questionnaire was conducted among 243 patients with breast, bowel and lung cancer who attended a public or private hospital as a private patient for elective surgery between 1st January and 31st December 2016. Patients were recruited via the Australian Government Department of Human Services using Medicare Benefits Schedules codes. Descriptive and conventional qualitative content analyses were conducted. Results: Ninety-four percent of patients attended a private hospital for elective surgery. Almost half of the patients chose their preferred hospital. Choice of hospital was primarily influenced by the patient’s specialist (89%) and not PPR data (92% unaware). Although patients considered PPR to be important (70%), they did not want to see the information. They preferred their general practitioners to tell them about it (40%). Barriers to patients’ use of PPR included lack of awareness (74%) and relevance (11%). Patients considered cost of surgery (59%), complications (58%) and success rates (57%) important information to be reported. They preferred the data to be reported at the individual doctor level (48%). Four themes were identified from the open-ended questions: 1) decision-making factors; 2) data credibility; 3) unmet information needs; and 4) unintended consequences. Discussion: Our findings suggest that PPR of hospital data had limited impact on patients’ choice of hospital. Greater dissemination of PPR is required to increase awareness. Furthermore, many patients expressed interest in using PPR to support their healthcare decision-making, however current content and format of PPR do not meet their information needs. PPR information must be patient-centred with an emphasis on making the data meaningful, interpretable and relevant. To maximise value in PPR and minimise unintended consequences, ongoing guidance from consumers are necessary. |
collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 |
container_issue |
4 |
title_short |
Consumer engagement to maximise the impact of public reporting of hospital performance data in Australiapuper |
url |
https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.s3627 https://doaj.org/article/93b7a113945c4e43b34d9cfe177d68ae https://www.ijic.org/articles/5383 https://doaj.org/toc/1568-4156 |
remote_bool |
true |
author2 |
Rachel Canaway David Dunt Margaret Kelaher |
author2Str |
Rachel Canaway David Dunt Margaret Kelaher |
ppnlink |
36955499X |
callnumber-subject |
R - General Medicine |
mediatype_str_mv |
c |
isOA_txt |
true |
hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
doi_str |
10.5334/ijic.s3627 |
callnumber-a |
R5-920 |
up_date |
2024-07-04T01:18:37.195Z |
_version_ |
1803609353451732993 |
fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ037462075</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230308010549.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.5334/ijic.s3627</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ037462075</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ93b7a113945c4e43b34d9cfe177d68ae</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R5-920</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Khic Prang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Consumer engagement to maximise the impact of public reporting of hospital performance data in Australiapuper</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background: Public performance reporting (PPR) of hospitals has been proposed as a mechanism for improving quality of care by providing transparency and accountability, increasing hospital quality and safety and informing consumer choice. In Australia, national mandatory PPR for public hospitals, including measures of cancer waiting times, was introduced in 2011. All public hospitals are now required to provide data to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare which is then reported on the MyHospitals website Public performance reporting is not mandatory for private hospitals, although some participate on a voluntary basis. Prior research indicates that PPR has limited impact on consumers’ healthcare decision-making. This may be due to the content, design and implementation of PPR which are not explicitly tailored to meet the needs and demands of consumers. Engaging with consumers to address these issues could lead to greater impact and utility of PPR. Aims: The aims of this study were to assess whether PPR of hospital data was used by patients with breast, bowel or lung cancer to inform hospital choice; factors that influence their hospital choice; the level of demands for PPR; barriers to using PPR; and how PPR could be improved to meet their information needs. Methods: A national cross-sectional questionnaire was conducted among 243 patients with breast, bowel and lung cancer who attended a public or private hospital as a private patient for elective surgery between 1st January and 31st December 2016. Patients were recruited via the Australian Government Department of Human Services using Medicare Benefits Schedules codes. Descriptive and conventional qualitative content analyses were conducted. Results: Ninety-four percent of patients attended a private hospital for elective surgery. Almost half of the patients chose their preferred hospital. Choice of hospital was primarily influenced by the patient’s specialist (89%) and not PPR data (92% unaware). Although patients considered PPR to be important (70%), they did not want to see the information. They preferred their general practitioners to tell them about it (40%). Barriers to patients’ use of PPR included lack of awareness (74%) and relevance (11%). Patients considered cost of surgery (59%), complications (58%) and success rates (57%) important information to be reported. They preferred the data to be reported at the individual doctor level (48%). Four themes were identified from the open-ended questions: 1) decision-making factors; 2) data credibility; 3) unmet information needs; and 4) unintended consequences. Discussion: Our findings suggest that PPR of hospital data had limited impact on patients’ choice of hospital. Greater dissemination of PPR is required to increase awareness. Furthermore, many patients expressed interest in using PPR to support their healthcare decision-making, however current content and format of PPR do not meet their information needs. PPR information must be patient-centred with an emphasis on making the data meaningful, interpretable and relevant. To maximise value in PPR and minimise unintended consequences, ongoing guidance from consumers are necessary.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">performance reporting</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">consumer</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">quality of care</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rachel Canaway</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">David Dunt</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Margaret Kelaher</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">International Journal of Integrated Care</subfield><subfield code="d">Ubiquity Press, 2016</subfield><subfield code="g">19(2019), 4</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)36955499X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2119289-3</subfield><subfield code="x">15684156</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:19</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.s3627</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/93b7a113945c4e43b34d9cfe177d68ae</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.ijic.org/articles/5383</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1568-4156</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">19</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="e">4</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
score |
7.402446 |