Do public reports of provider performance make their data and methods available and accessible?

Area of Science:

• Healthcare Transparency
• Health Services Research
• Performance Measurement

Background:

• Public reporting of healthcare provider performance is common.
• Diverse methodologies are used by different entities to generate provider ratings.
• Variability in reporting methods can affect the interpretability and utility of performance data.

Purpose of the Study:

• To assess the availability and accessibility of scoring methodologies in public hospital and physician performance reports.
• To evaluate the adherence of public reports to recommended elements for performance reporting, such as those in the Consumer-Purchaser Disclosure Project's Patient Charter.
• To identify gaps in methodological transparency that may influence consumer confidence in performance data.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of 115 hospital and 27 physician public performance reports.
• Examination of the extent to which reporting sponsors disclosed their scoring methods.
• Comparison of disclosed methods against established best practice elements for performance reporting.

Main Results:

• Nearly all examined websites offered some transparency regarding performance assessment methods.
• Significant variation exists in the completeness of methodological disclosures.
• Transparency was highest for data sources, measure endorsement, and attribution, but lowest for advanced provider review, reconsideration of results, reliability assessment, and case-mix adjustment.

Conclusions:

• While many public performance reports offer partial methodological transparency, substantial gaps remain, particularly in advanced statistical and procedural elements.
• Improving transparency in specific areas like reliability and case-mix adjustment is crucial for enhancing consumer confidence in provider performance data.
• Further research is needed to define core transparency elements that build user trust in public performance reports.