Search

Objective: This study gathered information from public hospital chief medical officers to better understand underlying mechanisms through which public reporting affects institutional behavioural change and decision making towards quality improvement. Methods: This qualitative study used thematic analysis of 17 semistructured, in-depth interviews among a peak group of medical directors representing 26 health services in Victoria, Australia. Results: The medical directors indicated a high level of in-principle support for public reporting of identifiable, individual clinician-level data. However, they also described varying conceptual understanding of what public reporting of performance data is. Overall, they considered public reporting of individual clinicians' performance data a means to improve health care quality, increase transparency and inform consumer healthcare decision making. Most identified caveats that would need to be met before such data should be publicly released, in particular the need to resolve issues around data quality and timeliness, context and interpretation and ethics. Acknowledgement of the public's right to access individual clinician-level data was at odds with some medical directors' belief that such reporting may diminish trust between clinicians and their employers, thus eroding rather than motivating quality improvement. Conclusions: Public reporting of identifiable individual healthcare clinicians' performance data is an issue that merits robust research and debate given the effects such reporting may have on doctors and on hospital quality and safety. What is known about the topic?: The public reporting of individual clinician-level data is a mechanism used in some countries, but not in Australia, for increasing health care transparency and quality. Clinician-level public reporting of doctors' performance attracts contention and debate in Australia. What does this paper add?: This paper informs debate around the public reporting of individual clinician-level performance data. Among a discrete cohort of senior hospital administrators in Victoria, Australia, there was strong in-principle support for such public reporting as a means to improve hospital quality and safety. What are the implications for practitioners?: Before public reporting of individual clinician performance data could occur in Australia, resolution of issues would be required relating to legality and ethics, data context and interpretation, data quality and timeliness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. The aims of the present study were to describe the views of senior clinical and executive staff employed in public sector residential aged care services (RACS) about the benefits and limitations of using quality indicators (QIs) for improving care, and to identify any barriers or enablers to implementing the QI program. Methods. Across-sectional qualitative study using semistructured interviews and direct observation of key informants involved in the QI program was performed across 20 public sector RACS in Victoria, Australia. Participants included senior clinical, executive and front-line staff at the RACS. The main outcome measures were perceived benefits and the enablers or barriers to the implementation of a QI program. Results. Most senior clinical and executive staff respondents reported substantive benefits to using the QIs and the QI program. A limited number of staff believed that the QI program failed to improve the quality of care and that the resource requirements outweighed the benefits of the program, resulting in disaffected staff. Conclusions. The QIs and QI program acted as a foundation for improving standards of care when used at the front line or point of care. Senior executive engagement in the QI program was vital to successful implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]