Health care public reporting utilization – user clusters, web trails, and usage barriers on Germany’s public reporting portal Weisse-Liste.de

Abstract

BackgroundQuality of care public reporting provides structural, process and outcome information to facilitate hospital choice and strengthen quality competition. Yet, evidence indicates that patients rarely use this information in their decision-making, due to limited awareness of the data and complex and conflicting information. While there is enthusiasm among policy makers for public reporting, clinicians and researchers doubt its overall impact. Almost no study has analyzed how users behave on public reporting portals, which information they seek out and when they abort their search.MethodsThis study employs web-usage mining techniques on server log data of 17 million user actions from Germany’s premier provider transparency portal Weisse-Liste.de (WL.de) between 2012 and 2015. Postal code and ICD search requests facilitate identification of geographical and treatment area usage patterns. User clustering helps to identify user types based on parameters like session length, referrer and page topic visited. First-level markov chains illustrate common click paths and premature exits.ResultsIn 2015, the WL.de Hospital Search portal had 2,750 daily users, with 25% mobile traffic, a bounce rate of 38% and 48% of users examining hospital quality information. From 2013 to 2015, user traffic grew at 38% annually. On average users spent 7 min on the portal, with 7.4 clicks and 54 s between clicks. Users request information for many oncologic and orthopedic conditions, for which no process or outcome quality indicators are available. Ten distinct user types, with particular usage patterns and interests, are identified. In particular, the different types of professional and non-professional users need to be addressed differently to avoid high premature exit rates at several key steps in the information search and view process. Of all users, 37% enter hospital information correctly upon entry, while 47% require support in their hospital search.ConclusionsSeveral onsite and offsite improvement options are identified. Public reporting needs to be directed at the interests of its users, with more outcome quality information for oncology and orthopedics. Customized reporting can cater to the different needs and skill levels of professional and non-professional users. Search engine optimization and hospital quality advocacy can increase website traffic.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12911-017-0440-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The impact of quality on hospital choice. Which information affects patients’ behavior for colorectal resection or knee replacement?

“…This platform should be extensively promoted in cooperation with referring physicians. In addition, relevant outcome quality indicators need to be defined [26]. PROMs show promising potential in measuring treatment outcomes that is relevant for patients both for orthopedic and oncologic procedures [39,40].…”

Implementation, relevance, and virtual adaptation of neuro-oncological tumor boards during the COVID-19 pandemic: a nationwide provider survey

“…The surveyed neuro-oncology centers in Germany were identified via Germany's leading provider transparency portal WeisseListe.de (WL.de). The portal WL.de has become the largest public portal for quality reports in healthcare in Germany [13]. The collected information originates from the statutory quality reports of over 2000 hospitals in Germany [14].…”

New Rules on Patient’s Safety and Professional Liability for the Italian Health Service

“…In the UK, MyNHS and others enact the UK open data policy and the NHS quality transparency objectives. In Germany, the transparency portal Weisse Liste.de (WL.de) reports the results of the mandatory quality monitoring system [64,65]. To date, in Italy the National Outcomes Program (PNE -Piano Nazionale Esiti) provides a set of performance indicators based on administrative data at the hospital level and publicly available on the website of the National Agency for Healthcare Services (AGENAS).…”

“…To date, in Italy the National Outcomes Program (PNE -Piano Nazionale Esiti) provides a set of performance indicators based on administrative data at the hospital level and publicly available on the website of the National Agency for Healthcare Services (AGENAS). These data have been used for hospital rankings, despite the recommendation to consider these indicators, such as mortality after cardiac surgery, for further investigation into the quality and safety of care, given the known limitations of these kind of data [64]. Besides, since the launch of the National monitoring system on errors in healthcare (SIMES) in 2009, the Ministry of Health published five reports on sentinel events, while AGENAS recently released the first report on claims due to adverse events.…”