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 Web of Science 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 Web of Science (9) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Epstein, A. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Epstein, A. J. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Heart Surgery Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Do Cardiac Surgery Report Cards Reduce Mortality? Assessing the Evidence

Yale University School of Medicine

Provider report cards feature prominently in ongoing efforts to improve patient quality. A well-known example is the cardiac surgery report-card program started in New York, which publicly compares hospital and surgeon performance. Public report cards have been associated with decreases in cardiac surgery mortality, but there is substantial disagreement over the source(s) of the improvement. This article develops a conceptual framework to explain how report-card-related responses could result in lower mortality and reviews the evidence. Existing research shows that report cards have not greatly changed referral patterns. How much providers increased their quality of care and altered their selection of patients remains unresolved, and alternative explanations have not been well studied. Future research should expand the number of states and years covered and exploit the variation in institutional features to improve our understanding of the relationship between report cards and outcomes.

Key Words: quality improvement • cardiac surgery • report cards

Medical Care Research and Review, Vol. 63, No. 4, 403-426 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/1077558706288831


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. Kronebusch Quality Information and Fragmented Markets: Patient Responses to Hospital Volume Thresholds Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, October 1, 2009; 34(5): 777 - 827. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. Kronebusch Assessing Changes in High-Volume Hospital Use: Hospitals, Payers, and Aggregate Volume Trends Med Care Res Rev, April 1, 2009; 66(2): 197 - 218. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. De Vos, W. Graafmans, M. Kooistra, B. Meijboom, P. Van Der Voort, and G. Westert Using quality indicators to improve hospital care: a review of the literature Int. J. Qual. Health Care, April 1, 2009; 21(2): 119 - 129. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. H. Ettinger, S. M. Hylka, R. A. Phillips, L. H. Harrison Jr, J. A. Cyr, and A. J. Sussman When Things Go Wrong: The Impact of Being a Statistical Outlier in Publicly Reported Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Mortality Data American Journal of Medical Quality, April 1, 2008; 23(2): 90 - 95. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Profit, J. A. F. Zupancic, J. B. Gould, and L. A. Petersen Implementing Pay-for-Performance in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Pediatrics, May 1, 2007; 119(5): 975 - 982. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. M. Krumholz, S.-L. T. Normand, J. A. Spertus, D. M. Shahian, and E. H. Bradley Measuring Performance For Treating Heart Attacks And Heart Failure: The Case For Outcomes Measurement Health Aff., January 1, 2007; 26(1): 75 - 85. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]