Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Primary Care
Published in: BMC Primary Care 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

The use of public performance reporting by general practitioners: a study of perceptions and referral behaviours

Authors: Khic-Houy Prang, Rachel Canaway, Marie Bismark, David Dunt, Margaret Kelaher

Published in: BMC Primary Care | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Public performance reporting (PPR) of hospital data aims to improve quality of care in hospitals and to inform consumer choice. In Australia, general practitioners (GPs) are gatekeepers to secondary care with patients requiring their referral for non-emergency access. Despite their intermediary role, GPs have been generally overlooked as potential users of PPR of hospital data, with the majority of the PPR research focussing on consumers, surgeons and hospitals.

Methods

We examined the use of PPR of hospital data by GPs when referring patients to hospitals. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 40 GPs, recruited via the Victorian Primary Care Practice-Based Research Network and GP teaching practices in Victoria, Australia. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.

Results

We found that the majority of GPs did not use PPR when referring patients to hospitals. Instead, they relied mostly on informal sources of information such as their own or patients’ previous experiences. Barriers that prevented GPs’ use of PPR in their decision making included: lack of awareness and accessibility; perceived lack of data credibility; restrictive geographical catchments for certain hospitals; limited choices of public hospitals in regional and rural areas; and no mandatory PPR for private hospitals.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that lack of PPR awareness prevented GPs from using it in their referral practice. As gatekeepers to secondary care, GPs are in a position to guide patients in their treatment decisions and referrals using available PPR data. We suggest that there needs to be greater involvement by GPs in the development of hospital performance and quality indicators in Australia if GPs are to make greater use of them. The indicators require further development before GPs perceive them as valid, credible, and of use for informing their referral practices.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Cacace M, Ettelt S, Brereton L, Pedersen JS, Nolte E. How health systems make available information on service providers: experience in seven countries. Rand Health Quarterly. 2011;1(1):11.PubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Rechel B, McKee M, Haas M, Marchildon GP, Bousquet F, Blümel M, et al. Public reporting on quality, waiting times and patient experience in 11 high-income countries. Health Policy. 2016;120(4):377–83.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Marshall MN, Shekelle PG, Davies HT, Smith PC. Public reporting on quality in the United States and the United Kingdom. Health Aff. 2003;22(3):134–48.CrossRef
4.
5.
6.
Berwick DM, James B, Coye MJ. Connections between quality measurement and improvement. Medical care. 2003;41(1):I30–8.PubMed
7.
Schlesinger M, Kanouse DE, Martino SC, Shaller D, Rybowski L. Complexity, public reporting, and choice of doctors. Med Care Res Rev. 2014;71(5_suppl):38S–64S.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Ketelaar NA, Faber MJ, Flottorp S, Rygh LH, Deane KH, Eccles MP. Public release of performance data in changing the behaviour of healthcare consumers, professionals or organisations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;11:CD004538. -CD
9.
Damman OC, Hendriks M, Rademakers J, Spreeuwenberg P, Delnoij DMJ, Groenewegen PP. Consumers’ interpretation and use of comparative information on the quality of health care: the effect of presentation approaches. Health Expect. 2012;15(2):197–211.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Emmert M, Schlesinger M. Hospital quality reporting in the United States: does report card design and incorporation of patient narrative comments affect hospital choice? Health Serv Res. 2017;52(3):933–58.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Marshall MN, Shekelle P, Leatherman S, Brook R. The public release of performance data: what do we expect to gain? A review of the evidence. JAMA. 2000;283(14):1866–74.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Hibbard JH, Greene J, Daniel D. What is quality anyway? Performance reports that clearly communicate to consumers the meaning of quality of care. Med Care Res Rev. 2010;67(3):275–93.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Victoor A, Noordman J, Sonderkamp JA, Delnoij DM, Friele RD, van Dulmen S, et al. Are patients’ preferences regarding the place of treatment heard and addressed at the point of referral: an exploratory study based on observations of GP-patient consultations. BMC Fam Pract. 2013;14(1):1.CrossRef
14.
Doering N, Maarse H. The use of publicly available quality information when choosing a hospital or health-care provider: the role of the GP. Health Expect. 2015;18(6):2174–82.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Schoen C, Osborn R, Huynh PT, Doty M, Peugh J, Zapert K. On the front lines of care: primary care doctors’ office systems, experiences, and views in seven countries. Health Aff. 2006;25(6):w555–w71.CrossRef
16.
17.
18.
19.
Cutler H, Gu Y, Olin E. Assessing choice for public hospital patients. Centre for the Health Economy: Macquarie University; 2017.
20.
21.
Chen J. Public reporting of health system performance: a rapid review of evidence on impact on patients, providers and healthcare organisations. Evidence Check. 2010;
22.
Campanella P, Vukovic V, Parente P, Sulejmani A, Ricciardi W, Specchia ML. The impact of public reporting on clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1):296.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Ferrua M, Sicotte C, Lalloué B, Minvielle E. Comparative quality indicators for hospital choice: do general practitioners care? PLoS One. 2016;11(2):e0147296.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Ketelaar NA, Faber MJ, Elwyn G, Westert GP, Braspenning JC. Comparative performance information plays no role in the referral behaviour of GPs. BMC Fam Pract. 2014;15(1):1.CrossRef
25.
Mannion R, Goddard M. General practitioners’ assessments of hospital quality and performance. Clinical Governance: An International Journal. 2004;9(1):42–7.CrossRef
26.
Birk HO, Henriksen LO. Which factors decided general practitioners’ choice of hospital on behalf of their patients in an area with free choice of public hospital? A questionnaire study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12(1):1.CrossRef
27.
van den Berg MJ, Kringos DS, Marks LK, Klazinga NS. The Dutch health care performance report: seven years of health care performance assessment in the Netherlands. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2014;12(1):1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Canaway R, Bismark M, Dunt D, Perceived KM. Barriers to effective implementation of public reporting of hospital performance data in Australia: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):391.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Soós M, Temple-Smith M, Gunn J, Johnston-Ata’Ata K, Pirotta M. Establishing the Victorian primary care practice based research network. Aust Fam Physician. 2010;39(11):857.PubMed
30.
QSR International Pty Ltd. NVivo qualitative data analysis software. Version. 2015;11
31.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.CrossRef
32.
33.
Barnett ML, Keating NL, Christakis NA, O’Malley AJ, Landon BE. Reasons for choice of referral physician among primary care and specialist physicians. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(5):506–12.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Kinchen KS, Cooper LA, Levine D, Wang NY, Powe NR. Referral of patients to specialists: factors affecting choice of specialist by primary care physicians. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(3):245–52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Piterman L, Koritsas S. Part II. General practitioner–specialist referral process. Intern Med J. 2005;35(8):491–6.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Forrest CB, Nutting PA, Starfield B, Von Schrader S. Family physicians' referral decisions: results from the ASPN referral study. J Fam Pract. 2002;51(3):215–23.PubMed
37.
Nocera A. Performance-based Hospital funding: a reform tool or an incentive for fraud? Med J Aust. 2010;192(4):222.PubMed
38.
Mannion R, Braithwaite J. Unintended consequences of performance measurement in healthcare: 20 salutary lessons from the English National Health Service. Intern Med J. 2012;42(5):569–74.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Werner RM, Asch DA. The unintended consequences of publicly reporting quality information. JAMA. 2005;293(10):1239–44.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Fung CH, Lim Y-W, Mattke S, Damberg C, Shekelle PG. Systematic review: the evidence that publishing patient care performance data improves quality of care. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(2):111–23.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Mannion R, Davies H, Marshall M. Impact of star performance ratings in English acute hospital trusts. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2005;10(1):18–24.CrossRef
42.
43.
44.
Hibbard JH, Stockard J, Tusler M. It isn't just about choice: the potential of a public performance report to affect the public image of hospitals. Med Care Res Rev. 2005;62(3):358–71.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Hibbard JH, Stockard J, Tusler M. Hospital performance reports: impact on quality, market share, and reputation. Health Aff. 2005;24(4):1150–60.CrossRef
46.
Rozen R, Florin D, Hutt R. An anatomy of GP referral decisions. A qualitative study of GP's view on their role in supporting patient choice. London: The King's Fund; 2007.
47.
Fasolo B, Reutskaja E, Dixon A, Boyce T. Helping patients choose: how to improve the design of comparative scorecards of hospital quality. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78(3):344–9.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Hildon Z, Allwood D, Black N. Making data more meaningful: patients’ views of the format and content of quality indicators comparing health care providers. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;88(2):298–304.CrossRefPubMed
49.
50.
Weldring T, SMS S. Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Health Serv Insights. 2013;6:61–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
51.
Delnoij DM, Rademakers JJ, Groenewegen PP. The Dutch consumer quality index: an example of stakeholder involvement in indicator development. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10(1):88.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
52.
Stubbe JH, Gelsema T, Delnoij DM. The consumer quality index hip knee questionnaire measuring patients' experiences with quality of care after a total hip or knee arthroplasty. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7(1):60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
53.
54.
Hargraves JL, Hays RD, Cleary PD. Psychometric properties of the consumer assessment of health plans study (CAHPS®) 2.0 adult Core survey. Health Serv Res. 2003;38(6p1):1509–28.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Elliott MN, Lehrman WG, Goldstein EH, Giordano LA, Beckett MK, Cohea CW, et al. Hospital survey shows improvements in patient experience. Health Aff. 2010;29(11):2061–7.CrossRef
56.
Price RA, Elliott MN, Zaslavsky AM, Hays RD, Lehrman WG, Rybowski L, et al. Examining the role of patient experience surveys in measuring health care quality. Med Care Res Rev. 2014;71(5):522–54.CrossRef
57.
Doyle C, Lennox L, Bell D. A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open. 2013;3(1)
58.
Victoria State Government Department of Health and Human Services. Better, safer care: Delivering a world-leading healthcare system. 2016.
59.
Duckett S, Cuddihy M, Newnham H. Targeting zero: supporting the Victorian hospital system to eliminate avoidable harm and strengthen quality of care. 2016.
60.
61.
Dixon A, Robertson R, Bal R. The experience of implementing choice at point of referral: a comparison of the Netherlands and England. Health Economics, Policy and Law. 2010;5(3):295–317.CrossRef
62.
Dixon A, Robertson R, Appleby J, Burge P, Devlin N, Magee H. Patient choice. How patients choose and how providers respond. London: The King's Fund; 2010.
63.
Metadata
Title
The use of public performance reporting by general practitioners: a study of perceptions and referral behaviours
Authors
Khic-Houy Prang
Rachel Canaway
Marie Bismark
David Dunt
Margaret Kelaher
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Primary Care / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 2731-4553
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-018-0719-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Primary Care 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

Potential correlates of burnout among general practitioners and residents in Hungary: the significant role of gender, age, dependant care and experience

Research article

Relationship between self-efficacy, self-care behaviour and glycaemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Malaysian primary care setting

Study protocol

Targeted prevention in primary care aimed at lifestyle-related diseases: a study protocol for a non-randomised pilot study

Research article

How general practitioners would deprescribe in frail oldest-old with polypharmacy — the LESS study

Research article

Novel oral anticoagulants in primary care in patients with atrial fibrillation: a cross-sectional comparison before and after their introduction

Research article

Patient factors that affect trust in physicians: a cross-sectional study