The impact of Public Reporting on clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

BackgroundTo assess both qualitatively and quantitatively the impact of Public Reporting (PR) on clinical outcomes, we carried out a systematic review of published studies on this topic.MethodsPubmed, Web of Science and SCOPUS databases were searched to identify studies published from 1991 to 2014 that investigated the relationship between PR and clinical outcomes. Studies were considered eligible if they investigated the relationship between PR and clinical outcomes and comprehensively described the PR mechanism and the study design adopted. Among the clinical outcomes identified, meta-analysis was performed for overall mortality rate which quantitative data were exhaustively reported in a sufficient number of studies. Two reviewers conducted all data extraction independently and disagreements were resolved through discussion. The same reviewers evaluated also the quality of the studies using a GRADE approach.ResultsTwenty-seven studies were included. Mainly, the effect of PR on clinical outcomes was positive. Meta-analysis regarding overall mortality included, in a context of high heterogeneity, 10 studies with a total of 1,840,401 experimental events and 3,670,446 control events and resulted in a RR of 0.85 (95 % CI, 0.79-0.92).ConclusionsThe introduction of PR programs at different levels of the healthcare sector is a challenging but rewarding public health strategy. Existing research covering different clinical outcomes supports the idea that PR could, in fact, stimulate providers to improve healthcare quality.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1543-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Thrombectomy stroke centers: The current threat to regionalizing stroke care

“…Direct prospective evidence would help support these logical inferences and serve to control the quality of stroke systems in the future. Recent studies have demonstrated a positive effect of public reporting on patient mortality and related clinical outcomes 16. Public data reporting would ensure that certified stroke centers are delivering the type of care that our patients and their families expect.…”

Lifting the veil on stroke outcomes: revisiting stroke centers’ transparency through public reporting of metrics

“…A recent meta-analysis and systematic review published by Campanella and colleagues evaluated the impact of public reporting on mortality and clinical outcomes 35. The study included 27 manuscripts, many derived from cardiology literature for procedural outcomes, but others dealing with other clinical metrics such as readmissions, wait times, hip fractures, antibiotic use, and injection prescribing rates.…”

Clinical quality registries for clinician‐level reporting: strengths and limitations

“…Evidence of improvement in patient outcomes is enhanced with public reporting 11,12 Low procedural/activity volume may lead to false complacency for low morbidity/mortality clinical indicators 14 Increased clinician and hospital engagement in quality improvement activities 5,13 Low procedural/activity volume may extend reporting periods required for robust statistical analysis, and reduce timeliness of feedback 14 May lead to recognition and remediation of poor performers 12,13 Appropriate clinical indicators are not routinely available for all medical specialties or activities, and may not provide a comprehensive picture of clinician performance 16 Supports college continuing professional development programs 17 Clinical indicators frequently reflect performance of team or system rather than an individual 14 Data are highly valid and trustworthy when using appropriately selected, risk-adjusted clinical indicators 5…”