Do German public reporting websites provide information that office-based physicians consider before referring patients to hospital? A four-step analysis

Kolb, Benjamin; Emmert, Martin; Sander, Uwe; Patzelt, Christiane; Schöffski, Oliver

doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2018.07.010

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The review complied with the Guideline from the Cochrane Collaboration [ 38 ]. Our search strategy was based on previously published literature and slightly modified [ 39 ]. As a result, 2,246 potentially relevant papers were identified in the electronic databases.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Referring physicians' intention to use hospital report cards for hospital referral purposes in the presence or absence of patient-reported outcomes: a randomized trial

Emmert

Schindler²,

Heppe

et al. 2023

Eur J Health Econ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to determine the intention to use hospital report cards (HRCs) for hospital referral purposes in the presence or absence of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as well as to explore the relevance of publicly available hospital performance information from the perspective of referring physicians. Methods We identified the most relevant information for hospital referral purposes based on a literature review and qualitative research. Primary survey data were collected (May–June 2021) on a sample of 591 referring orthopedists in Germany and analyzed using structural equation modeling. Participating orthopedists were recruited using a sequential mixed-mode strategy and randomly allocated to work with HRCs in the presence (intervention) or absence (control) of PROs. Results Overall, 420 orthopedists (mean age 53.48, SD 8.04) were included in the analysis. The presence of PROs on HRCs was not associated with an increased intention to use HRCs (p = 0.316). Performance expectancy was shown to be the most important determinant for using HRCs (path coefficient: 0.387, p < .001). However, referring physicians have doubts as to whether HRCs can help them. We identified “complication rate” and “the number of cases treated” as most important for the hospital referral decision making; PROs were rated slightly less important. Conclusions This study underpins the purpose of HRCs, namely to support referring physicians in searching for a hospital. Nevertheless, only a minority would support the use of HRCs for the next hospital search in its current form. We showed that presenting relevant information on HRCs did not increase their use intention.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Referring physicians' intention to use hospital report cards for hospital referral purposes in the presence or absence of patient-reported outcomes: a randomized trial

Emmert

Schindler²,

Heppe

et al. 2023

Eur J Health Econ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Traditionally, the SPO framework is generally adopted for constructing an indicator system, which preferably covers the contents of resources needed, service process and health benefits that patients preserve through receiving services. [37][38][39] In this study, the SPO was used as the primary indicator for categorising quality indicators of cancer care. Regarding indicator weight, outcomes indicators had the largest weight, while structure indicators had the lowest weight in this study.…”

Section: Quality Indicators and Weightmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing quality indicators for cancer hospitals in China: a national modified Delphi process

Liu,

YU,

Liu

2024

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveAlthough demand and supply of cancer care have been rapidly increasing in recent decades, there is a lack of systemic quality measurement for cancer hospitals in China. This study aimed to develop a set of core indicators for measuring quality of care for cancer hospitals in China.DesignThe development of quality indicators was based on a literature review and a two-round modified Delphi survey. The theoretical framework and initial indicators were identified through the comprehensive literature review, and the selection of quality indicators relied on experts’ consensus on the importance and feasibility of indicators by the modified Delphi process. In addition, indicator weight was identified using the analytical hierarchical process method and percentage weight method.Setting and participantsA panel of leading experts including oncologists, cancer care nurses, quality management experts from various regions of China were invited to participate in the two-round modified Delphi process from October to December 2020. A total of 25 experts completed the two-round modified Delphi process.ResultsThe experts reached consensus on a set of 47 indicators, comprising 17 structure indicators, 19 process indicators and 11 outcome indicators. Experts gave much higher weight to outcome indicators (accounting for 53.96% relative weight) than to structure (16.34%) and process (29.70%) indicators. In addition, experts also showed concerns and gave suggestions on data availability of specific outcome indicators.ConclusionsDrawing on the comprehensive literature review and the modified Delphi process, this study developed a core set of quality indicators that can be used to evaluate quality performance of cancer hospitals. This is helpful in supporting quality cancer care in China and will provide new insights into the systemic measurement of cancer care internationally.

show abstract

“…(Hermeling und Geraedts 2013). In den Berichten fehlen ihnen Angaben zur Erfahrung mit dem Krankenhaus aus Arzt-und Patientensicht (Geraedts et al 2007(Geraedts et al , 2018Kolb et al 2018) sowie relevante Ergebnisangaben, die -wenn vorhanden -in der von ihnen gewünschten Weise dargestellt werden sollten (Geraedts et al 2012 (Doering und Maarse 2015). Zentral in der Beurteilung und Empfehlung auch in den Niederlanden ist die eigene Erfahrung mit dem Krankenhaus und mit den dortigen Spezialisten (Doering und Maarse 2015).…”

Section: Zusammenfassungunclassified

Zuweisung und Patientennavigation ins Krankenhaus

Geraedts

Cruppé

2021

Krankenhaus-Report 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zusammenfassung Zusammenfassung Rechtlich gesehen dürfen nur Patientinnen und Patienten stationär im Krankenhaus behandelt werden, die ambulant nicht behandelt werden können. Empirisch sieht es jedoch so aus, dass viele elektive Patienten in Krankenhäuser stationär eingewiesen und dort behandelt werden, obwohl deren Erkrankungen oder zumindest Teile der notwendigen Prozeduren auch ambulant hätten behandelt bzw. durchgeführt werden können. Ob dieser Zuweisung der Patienten eine informierte Krankenhauswahl zugrunde lag, muss zumindest bezweifelt werden – weder Patientinnen und Patienten noch zuweisende Ärztinnen und Ärzte nutzen bisher in größerem Umfang die zur Verfügung stehenden objektiven Informationen. Stattdessen dominieren bei der Krankenhauswahl und -zuweisung weiterhin die eigenen oder die Erfahrungen von Angehörigen und Bekannten. Dabei hat sich das Informationsangebot über Krankenhäuser vor allem durch vergleichende Internetportale, die die Daten der Qualitätsberichte der Krankenhäuser nutzen, in den letzten Jahren stetig erhöht. Jedoch sind die grundlegenden Fragen der Krankenhauswahl für den Großteil der Patienten kaum mit Hilfe dieser Portale zu beantworten – verfügt das Krankenhaus über die zur Behandlung notwendige technische und personelle Ausstattung, behandelt das Krankenhaus nach den aktuell effektivsten und sichersten Methoden, welche Ergebnisse können Patienten erwarten, welche Erfahrungen haben vergleichbare Patienten gemacht? Entweder fehlen diese Informationen, sie sind schwer zu finden oder sie sind nicht laienverständlich. Darüber hinaus wird die Krankenhauswahl und Zuweisung von Patienten durch interessengebundene Informationen und Aktivitäten professioneller Informationsvermittler, aber auch Krankenhäuser beeinflusst, sodass vermutlich zuweilen auch in nicht geeignete Krankenhäuser zugewiesen wird. Von einer sorgfältig abgewogenen Krankenhauswahl bzw. -zuweisung, bei der Patienten und einweisende Ärzte auch digital verfügbare Informationen berücksichtigen, um das geeignetste Krankenhaus zu finden, sind wir noch weit entfernt.

show abstract

Do German public reporting websites provide information that office-based physicians consider before referring patients to hospital? A four-step analysis

Cited by 7 publications

References 26 publications

Referring physicians' intention to use hospital report cards for hospital referral purposes in the presence or absence of patient-reported outcomes: a randomized trial

Referring physicians' intention to use hospital report cards for hospital referral purposes in the presence or absence of patient-reported outcomes: a randomized trial

Developing quality indicators for cancer hospitals in China: a national modified Delphi process

Zuweisung und Patientennavigation ins Krankenhaus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About