Public Reporting über stationäre Pflegeeinrichtungen
in Deutschland: Eine Bestandsaufnahme und Bewertung der
Qualitätsinformationen

Kast, K; Emmert, Martin; Maier, Claudia B.

doi:10.1055/a-1160-5720

Cited by 3 publications

References 33 publications

(44 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

German comparison portals for midwife searches: a helpful decision-making tool for pregnant women?

Kast,

Oderbein,

Karch

et al. 2024

Präv Gesundheitsf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zusammenfassung Hintergrund und Zielsetzung Vergleichsportale können helfen, einen geeigneten medizinischen Leistungserbringer, wie z.B. eine Hebamme, zu finden. Das Ziel dieser Arbeit ist, solche Portale in Deutschland zu analysieren und ihren Nutzen für Schwangere zu beurteilen. Methodik Über die Suchmaschine Google wurden 25 deutsche Webseiten mit Hilfe der PRISMA-Systematik identifiziert, die eine Hebammensuche in Deutschland ermöglichen. Anhand einer Stichprobe aus 550 Hebammenprofilen wurden dort der Inhalt (Struktur-, Prozess- und Ergebnisqualität gemäß dem Qualitätsmodell von Avedis Donabedian) und die Funktionen der Webseiten (z.B. Filtern, Sortieren, Vergleichen) untersucht sowie der Nutzen der Vergleichsportale anhand einer Checkliste mit fünf Kategorien (z.B. Sozialkompetenz) evaluiert. Ergebnisse Die Webseiten konzentrieren sich in den meisten Fällen ausschließlich auf Hebammensuche (92 %) und werden durch Hebammen (60 %) oder ihre Verbände (16 %) mit Informationen versorgt. Ein Drittel (n = 8) der Webseiten gibt keine Informationsquelle an. Überwiegend sind Elemente der Strukturqualität und Möglichkeiten zum Suchen und Filtern von Informationen vorhanden. Mehrere bedeutende Informationen (z.B. Qualifikation, Ergebnisqualität) und Funktionen (z.B. Vergleichen, Bewerten) sind ungenügend vorhanden. Bei der Nutzenbewertung erreichten die Webseiten insgesamt 114 von 400 möglichen Punkten, was einem Abdeckungsgrad von weniger als 30% entspricht. Diskussion und Fazit Insgesamt konnte festgestellt werden, dass Vergleichsportale in der aktuellen Form für Schwangere bei der Suche nach einer geeigneten Hebamme nicht hilfreich sind und nicht das Potenzial haben, die Versorgung zu verbessern. Für eine adäquate Qualitätsberichterstattung auf Vergleichsportalen, müssen Informationen aus unabhängigen Quellen konsequent dargelegt werden. Neben strukturellen Informationen müssen auch „harte Fakten“ veröffentlicht werden und Bewertungen durch Patientinnen sollten möglich sein. Darüber hinaus sollten für eine bessere Handhabung der Informationen weitere Komplexität reduzierende Funktionen eingebaut werden.

show abstract

German comparison portals for midwife searches: a helpful decision-making tool for pregnant women?

Kast,

Oderbein,

Karch

et al. 2024

Präv Gesundheitsf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Web-Based Public Reporting as a Decision-Making Tool for Consumers of Long-Term Care in the United States and the United Kingdom: Systematic Analysis of Report Cards

Kast,

Otten,

Konopik

et al. 2023

JMIR Form Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Report cards can help consumers make an informed decision when searching for a long-term care facility. Objective This study aims to examine the current state of web-based public reporting on long-term care facilities in the United States and the United Kingdom. Methods We conducted an internet search for report cards, which allowed for a nationwide search for long-term care facilities and provided freely accessible quality information. On the included report cards, we drew a sample of 1320 facility profiles by searching for long-term care facilities in 4 US and 2 UK cities. Based on those profiles, we analyzed the information provided by the included report cards descriptively. Results We found 40 report cards (26 in the United States and 14 in the United Kingdom). In total, 11 of them did not state the source of information. Additionally, 7 report cards had an advanced search field, 24 provided simplification tools, and only 3 had a comparison function. Structural quality information was always provided, followed by consumer feedback on 27 websites, process quality on 15 websites, prices on 12 websites, and outcome quality on 8 websites. Inspection results were always displayed as composite measures. Conclusions Apparently, the identified report cards have deficits. To make them more helpful for users and to bring public reporting a bit closer to its goal of improving the quality of health care services, both countries are advised to concentrate on optimizing the existing report cards. Those should become more transparent and improve the reporting of prices and consumer feedback. Advanced search, simplification tools, and comparison functions should be integrated more widely.

show abstract

Web-Based Public Reporting as a Decision-Making Tool for Consumers of Long-Term Care in the United States and the United Kingdom: Systematic Analysis of Report Cards (Preprint)

Kast,

Otten,

Konopik

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Report cards can help consumers make an informed decision when searching for a long-term care facility. OBJECTIVE This study aims to examine the current state of web-based public reporting on long-term care facilities in the United States and the United Kingdom. METHODS We conducted an internet search for report cards, which allowed for a nationwide search for long-term care facilities and provided freely accessible quality information. On the included report cards, we drew a sample of 1320 facility profiles by searching for long-term care facilities in 4 US and 2 UK cities. Based on those profiles, we analyzed the information provided by the included report cards descriptively. RESULTS We found 40 report cards (26 in the United States and 14 in the United Kingdom). In total, 11 of them did not state the source of information. Additionally, 7 report cards had an advanced search field, 24 provided simplification tools, and only 3 had a comparison function. Structural quality information was always provided, followed by consumer feedback on 27 websites, process quality on 15 websites, prices on 12 websites, and outcome quality on 8 websites. Inspection results were always displayed as composite measures. CONCLUSIONS Apparently, the identified report cards have deficits. To make them more helpful for users and to bring public reporting a bit closer to its goal of improving the quality of health care services, both countries are advised to concentrate on optimizing the existing report cards. Those should become more transparent and improve the reporting of prices and consumer feedback. Advanced search, simplification tools, and comparison functions should be integrated more widely.

show abstract

Public Reporting über stationäre Pflegeeinrichtungen in Deutschland: Eine Bestandsaufnahme und Bewertung der Qualitätsinformationen

Cited by 3 publications

References 33 publications

German comparison portals for midwife searches: a helpful decision-making tool for pregnant women?

German comparison portals for midwife searches: a helpful decision-making tool for pregnant women?

Web-Based Public Reporting as a Decision-Making Tool for Consumers of Long-Term Care in the United States and the United Kingdom: Systematic Analysis of Report Cards

Web-Based Public Reporting as a Decision-Making Tool for Consumers of Long-Term Care in the United States and the United Kingdom: Systematic Analysis of Report Cards (Preprint)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About