CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 92Healthcare Quality and ManagementPatient Satisfaction in HealthcarePrimary Care and Health Outcomes

The GAAP in Quality Measurement and Reporting

Pronovost, Peter J., Miller, Marlene, Wachter, Robert M.·2007·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.298.15.1800
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

CATALYZED BY EVIDENCE OF POOR-QUALITY CARE AND remarkable variations in processes and outcomes, the interest in quality measurement has increased exponentially. Manifestations of this interest include widespread promulgation of quality measures, an increase in public reporting of these measures, and early experiments in paying for quality. Now that quality of care is being measured rather than assumed, there seems little doubt that better quality scores will lead to major competitive advantages for clinicians and organizations. Although many quality measures are used internally by health care organizations to improve quality of care, an increasing number of measures are being reported publicly. Yet the measurement of quality in health care is neither standardized nor consistently accurate and reliable. Because any organization or company can advertise the quality of its products, it is important to hold health care quality measures to a higher standard than claims about, for example, household products. Without such assurances, publicly reported quality measures may misinform and possibly erode the trust that underlies the medical profession. If patients cannot trust what is reported, they may lose confidence in the quality of care that is provided. Invalid publicly reported quality-of-care measures pose significant risks to patients, clinicians, and potentially to payers. Patients might choose care according to misinformation and make poor decisions. Health care organizations may become overconfident about the quality of care provided and reduce or eliminate improvement efforts and introduce preventable harm. Payers may mistakenly provide financial rewards, channel patients to low-quality clinicians, or make inaccurate inferences about the value (quality per cost) they purchase.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.298.15.1800

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Improvement interventions are commonly launched without either a good outcome measurement plan or the baseline data required for meaningful time-series analyses.

    “Improvement interventions are also commonly launched without either a good outcome measurement plan or the baseline data required for meaningful time-series analyses.34–36”

    From Demystifying theory and its use in improvement (2015) · cites this paper as [34]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Pronovost, P. J., Miller, M., & Wachter, R. M.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
ORCID
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2007-10-17
Volume
298
Issue
15
Pages
1800
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.298.15.1800
OpenAlex
W2013775035
Cited by
92
References
16
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
FWCI
23.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
quality of care measurement, health care quality reporting, healthcare quality standards, healthcare quality improvement
MeSH terms
Credentialing, Humans, Medical Audit, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, United States, Private Sector, Public Sector, Quality Indicators, Health Care

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