Determinanten eines erfolgreichen Einweisermarketings für Krankenhäuser - eine explorative Analyse

The elicitation of patient and physician preferences for calculating consumer-based composite measures on hospital report cards: results of two discrete choice experiments

PURPOSE

The calculation of aggregated composite measures is a widely used strategy to reduce the amount of data on hospital report cards. Therefore, this study aims to elicit and compare preferences of both patients as well as referring physicians regarding publicly available hospital quality information METHODS: Based on systematic literature reviews as well as qualitative analysis, two discrete choice experiments (DCEs) were applied to elicit patients' and referring physicians' preferences. The DCEs were conducted using a fractional factorial design. Statistical data analysis was performed using multinomial logit models RESULTS: Apart from five identical attributes, one specific attribute was identified for each study group, respectively. Overall, 322 patients (mean age 68.99) and 187 referring physicians (mean age 53.60) were included. Our models displayed significant coefficients for all attributes (p < 0.001 each). Among patients, "Postoperative complication rate" (20.6%; level range of 1.164) was rated highest, followed by "Mobility at hospital discharge" (19.9%; level range of 1.127), and ''The number of cases treated" (18.5%; level range of 1.045). In contrast, referring physicians valued most the ''One-year revision surgery rate'' (30.4%; level range of 1.989), followed by "The number of cases treated" (21.0%; level range of 1.372), and "Postoperative complication rate" (17.2%; level range of 1.123) CONCLUSION: We determined considerable differences between both study groups when calculating the relative value of publicly available hospital quality information. This may have an impact when calculating aggregated composite measures based on consumer-based weighting.

Do German public reporting websites provide information that office-based physicians consider before referring patients to hospital? A four-step analysis

BACKGROUND

In recent years, many different performance frameworks and quality assurance systems have been developed to measure health care quality. In Germany, an external quality assurance system for hospitals was introduced in 2005. The data of these systems are often reported by public reporting websites (PRWs) to inform patients and other stakeholders interested in health care systems about health care providers' quality. However, publication is obligatory (at least in Germany) for most of the existing quality assurance measures; some may be reported voluntarily. An important target group for this information is the group of all office-based physicians as they are crucial for patients' hospital choice. However, public reporting initiatives in Germany and other countries have not increased the use of quality reports for hospital choice.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To summarize the criteria that office-based physicians consider to be of high, medium, and low importance for hospital selection when referring patients and (2) to examine whether German public reporting websites (PRWs) provide these hospital-related criteria.

METHODS

The analysis comprised four steps: 1) Five databases were systematically searched for peer-reviewed English- and German-language literature. 2) The selection of articles was based on compliance with inclusion criteria, and all the criteria relevant to the referral of patients to hospital were extracted. 3) The criteria were then divided into five main categories: structural quality, process quality, outcome quality, patient experience, and referring physicians' experience. In addition, the criteria were classified into three importance categories (high-, medium-, and low-priority criteria) according to their relevance to the referral decision. 4) We investigated whether German PRWs publicly report high-priority criteria.

RESULTS

A total of N=11 articles published in peer-reviewed journals met our inclusion criteria. The studies were published in Germany (n=4), the Netherlands (n=3), Denmark, France, Norway, and the USA (n=1 each). In total, N=86 criteria were identified, most of them relating to structural quality (n=43) and process quality (n=26). We found just n=3 outcome quality criteria, only one of which fell in the high-priority category (breast cancer indicators with clinically relevant differences). In total, n=25 low-, n=40 medium-, and n=34 high-priority criteria could be established, which is due to the fact that some criteria had been investigated in several studies evaluating the importance of some criteria differently. Most of the high-priority criteria were related to process quality. All the high-priority structural quality criteria and high-priority outcome quality criteria were available on German PRWs, whereas just 38.5 % of those relating to process quality could be identified on these portals. We also identified 66.7 % of the high-priority criteria regarding patient experience and 50.0 % concerning the referring physicians' experience. Overall, a larger amount of low- and medium-priority criteria are available on German PRWs than high-priority criteria.

DISCUSSION

A substantial amount of hospital information regarding structural quality and outcome quality is available on German PRWs. However, the development of further process quality criteria (which are currently underrepresented) should be considered, for example whether hospital physicians continue the medication initiated by office-based doctors. Also, hospital quality reports should be tailored for specific user groups, for instance for referring gynecologists or referring general practitioners (GPs).