Who is watching the watchmen: Is quality reporting ever harmful?

Quality reporting is increasingly used as a tool to encourage health systems, hospitals, and their practitioners to deliver the greatest health benefit. However, quality reporting systems may have unintended negative consequences, such as inadvertently encouraging "cherry-picking" by inadequately adjusting for patients who are challenging to take care of, or underpowering to reliably detect meaningful differences in care. There have been no reports seeking to identify a minimum level of accuracy that ought to be viewed as a prerequisite for quality reporting.

Using a decision analytic model, we seek to delineate minimal standards for quality measures to meet, using the simplest assumptions to illustrate what those standards may be.

We find that even under assumptions regarding optimal performance of the quality reporting system (sensitivity and specificity of 1), we can identify a minimal level of accuracy required for the quality reporting system to "do no harm": the increase in health-related quality of life from a higher rather than lower quality practitioner must be greater than the number of practitioners per patient divided by the proportion of patients willing to switch from a lower to a higher quality provider.

Quality measurement systems that have not been demonstrated to improve health outcomes should be held to a specific standard of measurement accuracy.