ArticleJoint Commission journal on quality and patient safety2015
A qualitative analysis of hospital leaders' opinions about publicly reported measures of health care quality.
Article in Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of a new design solution for the visualisation of a risk-adjusted hospital performance comparison: results of an end user-centred mixed methods study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- A Qualitative Study of Health Workers' Experiences During Early Surges in the COVID-19 Pandemic in the U.S.: Implications for Ongoing Occupational Health Challenges.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Physician Beliefs About Online Reporting of Quality and Experience Data.Journal of general internal medicine · 2019Article
- Spatial analysis of factors influencing choice of paediatric practice for mothers from low-income and minority populations.Journal of paediatrics and child health · 2019Article
- Article
- Keeping It Simple in Sepsis Measures.Journal of hospital medicine · 2017Article
- Does Objective Quality of Physicians Correlate with Patient Satisfaction Measured by Hospital Compare Metrics in New York State?World neurosurgery · 2017Article
- Measuring, Reporting, and Rewarding Quality of Care in 5 Nations: 5 Policy Levers to Enhance Hospital Quality Accountability.The Milbank quarterly · 2017Article
- Do Clinicians Understand Quality Metric Data? An Evaluation in a Twitter-Derived Sample.Journal of hospital medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHospital leaders play an important role in the success of quality improvement (QI) initiatives, yet little is known about how leaders engaged in QI currently view quality performance measures. In a follow-up to a quantitative study conducted in 2012, a study employing qualitative content analysis was conducted to (1) describe leaders' opinions about the quality measures reported on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Compare website, (2) to generate hypotheses about barriers/facilitators to improving hospitals' performance, and (3) to elicit recommendations about how to improve publicly reported quality measures.
methodsThe opinions of leaders from a stratified sample of 630 hospitals across the United States regarding quality measures were assessed with an open-ended prompt that was part of a 21-item questionnaire about quality measures publicly reported by CMS. Their responses were qualitatively analyzed in an iterative process, resulting in the identification of the presence and frequency of major themes and subthemes.
resultsParticipants from 131 (21%) of the 630 hospitals surveyed replied to the open-ended prompt; 15% were from hospitals with higher-than-average performance scores, and 52% were from hospitals with lower-than-average scores. Major themes included (1) concerns regarding quality measurement (measure validity, importance, and fairness) and/or public reporting; 76%); (2) positive views of quality measurement (stimulate improvement, focus efforts; 13%); and (3) recommendations for improving quality measurement.
conclusionsAmong hospital leaders responding to an open-ended survey prompt, some supported the concept of measuring quality, but the majority criticized the validity and utility of current quality measures. Although quality measures are frequently being reevaluated and new measures developed, the ability of such measures to stimulate improvement may be limited without greater buy-in from hospital leaders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.