Facts and Fears in Public Reporting: Patients’ Information Needs and Priorities When Selecting a Hospital for Cancer Care

Abstract

Objective. Public reporting on the quality of provider care has the potential to empower patients to make evidence-based decisions. Yet patients seldom consult resources such as provider report cards in part because they perceive the information as irrelevant. To inform more effective public reporting, we investigated patients’ information priorities when selecting a hospital for cancer treatment. We hypothesized that patients would be most interested in data on clinical outcomes. Methods. An experienced moderator led a series of focus groups using a semistructured discussion guide. Separate sessions were held with patients aged 18 to 54 years and those older than 54 years in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Phoenix, Arizona; and Indianapolis, Indiana, in 2017. All 38 participants had received treatment for cancer within the past 2 years and had a choice of hospitals. Results. In selecting hospitals for cancer treatment, many participants reported that they considered factors such as reputation, quality of the facilities, and experiences of other patients. For most, however, decisions were guided by trusted advisors, with the majority agreeing that a physician’s opinion would sway them to disregard objective data about hospital quality. Nonetheless, nearly all expressed interest in having comparative data. Participants varied in selecting from a hypothetical list, “the top 3 things you would want to know when choosing a hospital for cancer care.” The most commonly preferred items were overall care quality, timeliness, and patient satisfaction. Contrary to our hypothesis, many preferred to avoid viewing comparative clinical outcomes, particularly survival. Conclusions. Patients’ information preferences are diverse. Fear or other emotional responses might deter patients from viewing outcomes data such as survival. Additional research should explore optimal ways to help patients incorporate comparative data on the components of quality they value into decision making.

The impact of public performance reporting on cancer elective surgery waiting times: a data linkage study

“…To improve the timeliness of elective surgery for cancer and other conditions, many countries have introduced healthcare reforms involving national targets and performance measures [ 5 ]. Previous studies have shown that patients with cancer support public reporting of care quality, timeliness, and patient satisfaction/experience [ 6 , 7 ].…”

High hospital volume is associated with more consistent long-term mortality rates

“…We found that four-year risk-adjusted mortality ratios of cancer patients are reasonably consistent for larger volumes of FFS Medicare patients, but less so for hospitals with lower volumes. Among higher volume hospitals (defined as 335 Medicare patients or more), long-term mortality could be added to the list cancer care quality metrics (8,9). and be a useful metric for patients' when selecting hospital for cancer care.…”

Estimating hospitals’ all-payer volume of cancer surgeries from Fee-for-Service Medicare claims

“…Proponents of reporting cancer volume argue that at the very least patients deserve to have access to hospital volume information to inform decision-making (24). And while patients are interested in volume, it does not serve as a replacement for surgical outcomes data, but rather can be used as additional information to inform decision-making or quality improvement efforts (7). Information on hospital cancer surgery volume could provide more comprehensive data to guide existing policy-relevant research, including studies on the centralization of surgery, the volume-outcome relationship, and minimum surgical case-load requirements.…”

“…Estimating hospitals' all-payer volume of cancer surgeries from Fee-for-Service Medicare claims care (7).…”