This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Simon, L. P. Articles by Monroe, A. F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Simon, L. P. Articles by Monroe, A. F. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

California Provider Group Report Cards: What Do They Tell Us?

California HealthCare Foundation Quality Initiative, Oakland, CA, lpsimon{at}chcf.org

Ann F. Monroe, MA

California HealthCare Foundation Quality Initiative, Oakland, CA

The objective of this study was to perform a practical assessment of publicly reported data from 4 reports on California provider groups through the eyes of the consumer. The study compared performance indicator content and rating methodologies, examined the degree of correlation in provider group performance on indicators common to 2 or more reports, and assessed the level of concordance among summary ratings of performance. Comparative analyses revealed significant variation in performance indicator content, data sources, and rating methodologies. Spearman correlation analysis revealed highly correlated group performance on patient satisfaction and member-requested group transfers, poorly correlated performance on breast and cervical cancer screening, and moderately correlated performance on state and regional average scores. Summary ratings applied to these data were only moderately correlated. These findings suggest that competing California provider group report cards produce inconsistent messages about provider quality and may create barriers to use, comprehension, and reliance upon quality information among consumers and other potential users.

Key Words: Health maintenance organization • Provider group • Quality • Report card • Variation

American Journal of Medical Quality, Vol. 16, No. 2, 61-70 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/106286060101600204


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				I-C. Huang, F. Dominici, C. Frangakis, G. B. Diette, C. L. Damberg, and A. W. Wu Is Risk-Adjustor Selection More Important Than Statistical Approach for Provider Profiling? Asthma as an Example Med Decis Making, January 1, 2005; 25(1): 20 - 34. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. Harrington, J. O'Meara, M. Kitchener, L. P. Simon, and J. F. Schnelle Designing a Report Card for Nursing Facilities: What Information Is Needed and Why Gerontologist, April 1, 2003; 43(90002): 47 - 57. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Harrington, E. Collier, J. O'Meara, M. Kitchener, L. P. Simon, and J. F. Schnelle Federal and State Nursing Facility Websites: Just What the Consumer Needs? American Journal of Medical Quality, January 1, 2003; 18(1): 21 - 37. [Abstract] [PDF]