The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Use of Public Performance Reports: A Survey of Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery
Abstract
CONTEXT: Publicly released performance reports ("report cards") are expected to foster competition on the basis of quality. Proponents frequently cite the need to inform patient choice of physicians and hospitals as a central element of this strategy. OBJECTIVE: To examine the awareness and use of a statewide consumer guide that provides risk-adjusted, in-hospital mortality ratings of hospitals that provide cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Telephone survey conducted in 1996. SETTING: Pennsylvania, where since 1992, the Pennsylvania Consumer Guide to Coronary Artery Bypass Graft [CABG] Surgery has provided risk-adjusted mortality ratings of all cardiac surgeons and hospitals in the state. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 474 (70%) of 673 eligible patients who had undergone CABG surgery during the previous year at 1 of 4 hospitals listed in the Consumer Guide as having average mortality rates between 1% and 5% were successfully contacted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' awareness of the Consumer Guide, their knowledge of its ratings, their degree of interest in the report, and barriers to its use. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients (20%) were aware of the Consumer Guide, but only 56 (12%) knew about it before surgery. Among these 56 patients, 18 reported knowing the hospital rating and 7 reported knowing the surgeon rating, 11 said hospital and/or surgeon ratings had a moderate or major impact on their decision making, but only 4 were able to specify either or both correctly. When the Consumer Guide was described to all patients, 264 (56%) were "very" or "somewhat" interested in seeing a copy, and 273 (58%) reported that they probably or definitely would change surgeons if they learned that their surgeon had a higher than expected mortality rate in the previous year. A short time window for decision making and a limited awareness of alternative hospitals within a reasonable distance of home were identified as important barriers to use. CONCLUSIONS: Only 12% of patients surveyed reported awareness of a prominent report on cardiac surgery mortality before undergoing cardiac surgery. Fewer than 1% knew the correct rating of their surgeon or hospital and reported that it had a moderate or major impact on their selection of provider. Efforts to aid patient decision making with performance reports are unlikely to succeed without a tailored and intensive program for dissemination and patient education.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Improving the Outcomes of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery in New York State
Hannan, E. L. (1994) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1994.03510340051033 · Cited by 756
O'Connor, G. T. (1996) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03530350023029 · Cited by 726
Report Cards on Cardiac Surgeons — Assessing New York State's Approach
Green, J., & Wintfeld, N. (1995) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199505043321812 · Cited by 386
O'Connor, G. T. (1991) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1991.03470060065028 · Cited by 381
A Strategy for Quality Assurance in Medicare
Lohr, K. N., & Schroeder, S. A. (1990) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199003083221031 · Cited by 345
Silber, J. H. (1995) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03530040045039 · Cited by 314
Edgman-Levitan, S., & Cleary, P. D. (1996) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.15.4.42 · Cited by 242
Performance Reports on Quality -- Prototypes, Problems, and Prospects
Epstein, A. (1995) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199507063330114 · Cited by 236
Self-citationConsumer Reports in Health Care
Longo, D. R. (1997) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03550190043042 · Cited by 125
Hannan, E. L., Stone, C. C., Biddle, T. L., & DeBuono, B. A. (1997) · American Heart Journal · doi:10.1016/s0002-8703(97)70106-6 · Cited by 116
Cited by
Ferlie, E. B., & Shortell, S. M. (2001) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/1468-0009.00206 · Cited by 1,335
Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User’s Guide
(2020) · doi:10.23970/ahrqepcregistries4 · Cited by 960
Full Disclosure: The Perils and Promise of Transparency
Fung, A., Graham, M., & Weil, D. (2007) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511510533 · Cited by 752
Quality Disclosure and Certification: Theory and Practice
Dranove, D., & Jin, G. Z. (2010) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.48.4.935 · Cited by 740
Is More Information Better? The Effects of “Report Cards” on Health Care Providers
Dranove, D., Kessler, D., McClellan, M., & Satterthwaite, M. (2003) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/374180 · Cited by 666
Metadata
- Authors
- Schneider, E. C., & Epstein, A. M.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1998-05-27
- Volume
- 279
- Issue
- 20
- Pages
- 1638
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2062571678
- Cited by
- 386
- References
- 17
- FWCI
- 43.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Use of Public Performance Reports: A Survey of Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.279.20.1638
- The paper
- Schneider, E. C., & Epstein, A. M. (1998). Use of Public Performance Reports: A Survey of Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.279.20.1638
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.