Kennen und nutzen Ärzte den strukturierten Qualitätsbericht?

Hermeling, Peter; Geraedts, Max

doi:10.1055/s-0032-1321744

Cited by 14 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[ 15 ] Finally, a study based on a random sample of 300 GPs concluded that Germany’s mandatory hospital quality reports played only a minor role in physicians’ counseling of patients who needed hospital care because too few physicians knew about and used the reports. [ 17 ]…”

Section: Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Quality Indicators for Hospital Choice: Do General Practitioners Care?

Ferrua¹,

Sicotte²,

Lalloué³

et al. 2016

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ContextThe strategy of publicly reporting quality indicators is being widely promoted through public policies as a way to make health care delivery more efficient.ObjectiveTo assess general practitioners’ (GPs) use of the comparative hospital quality indicators made available by public services and the media, as well as GPs’ perceptions of their qualities and usefulness.MethodA telephone survey of a random sample representing all self-employed GPs in private practice in France.ResultsA large majority (84.1%–88.5%) of respondents (n = 503; response rate of 56%) reported that they never used public comparative indicators, available in the mass media or on government and non-government Internet sites, to influence their patients’ hospital choices. The vast majority of GPs rely mostly on traditional sources of information when choosing a hospital. At the same time, this study highlights favourable opinions shared by a large proportion of GPs regarding several aspects of hospital quality indicators, such as their good qualities and usefulness for other purposes. In sum, the results show that GPs make very limited use of hospital quality indicators based on a consumer choice paradigm but, at the same time, see them as useful in ways corresponding more to the usual professional paradigms, including as a means to improve quality of care.

show abstract

Section: Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Quality Indicators for Hospital Choice: Do General Practitioners Care?

Ferrua¹,

Sicotte²,

Lalloué³

et al. 2016

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, general physicians often have a negative view of public reporting, primarily due to risks of insufficient risk-adjustments, oversimplification and patient skimming by providers [59]. Public reporting usage among specialists is limited [12]. The WL.de portal currently has no feature to separately address expert physician users, e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In another US survey, only 7% of participants actually used hospital quality of care information to make health care decisions [10, 11]. In Germany, less than 20% of outpatient specialists are aware of public reporting websites and less than 10% use them actively for patient advise [12]. Causes for the often limited impact of public reporting include: complexity of quality measures, limited user-friendliness, lack of physician support and little integration into the care pathway, missing awareness of substantial quality difference between hospitals and thus motivation to search quality information and actually choose a good hospital, a mismatch between supplied and demanded information, and confusion about conflicting results on different websites for the same provider [1, 8, 13–19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Proß¹,

Averdunk²,

Stjepanovic³

et al. 2017

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…39 % die Qualitätsberichte kennen und nur von 10 % aktiv für die Patientenberatung verwendet werden. Internetportale kennen 11 % der befragten Ärzte und lediglich 4 % setzen diese aktiv für die Patientenberatung ein [13]. In den letzten Jahren sind zahlreiche Portale entstanden, auf denen die Qualität von Krankenhäusern dargestellt wird.…”

Section: Abstract ▼unclassified

Internetportale für die Krankenhauswahl in Deutschland: Eine leistungsbereichsspezifische Betrachtung

Emmert¹,

Meszmer²,

Simon

et al. 2015

Gesundheitswesen

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims of this study are to provide (i) a presentation of quality of care information about German hospitals on internet report cards, and (ii) derive a guidance tool for using certain report cards. We undertook (i) a systematic internet search to identify hospital report cards, (ii) whereby several inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, (iii) We developed a scheme to describe the presented quality information, (iv) We also analysed the report cards and (v) evaluated the results and derived further usage guidance. 18 report cards were included. 8 report cards present nationwide quality information while ten report cards focus on regional areas. The AOK Krankenhaus-navigator provides the most information about 5 clinical areas of the external quality assurance (§ 137 SGB V). Regarding the remaining 26 clinical areas, the TK Klinikführer, the Barmer Krankenhausnavi, and the Weisse Liste provide the largest amount of quality information. Qualitätskliniken.de reports on 9, the Klinikführer Rheinland on 8, the Bremer Krankenhausspiegel on 4, and the Hamburger Krankenhausspiegel on 2 additional clinical areas. This study shows that a differentiated view for each clinical area is necessary when searching for information about the quality of hospitals. Further studies should assess the quality of the report cards as well as the information that they display.

show abstract

Kennen und nutzen Ärzte den strukturierten Qualitätsbericht?

Abstract: Germany's mandatory hospital quality reports play only a minor role in physicians counselling of patients who need hospital care because too few physicians know and use the reports.

Cited by 14 publications

References 6 publications

Comparative Quality Indicators for Hospital Choice: Do General Practitioners Care?

Comparative Quality Indicators for Hospital Choice: Do General Practitioners Care?

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

Internetportale für die Krankenhauswahl in Deutschland: Eine leistungsbereichsspezifische Betrachtung

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About