Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 386

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

Schneider, Eric C., Epstein, Arnold M.·1998·JAMA

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.279.20.1638

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 17 references

Cited by

See all 386

Metadata

Authors
Schneider, E. C., & Epstein, A. M.
Venue
JAMA
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.