This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (4)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Informatics/ Internet in Medicine  • Quality of Care, Other  • Surgical Interventions, Other  • Surgery, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Determination of Useful, Valid, and Appropriate Information for Comparing Surgical Quality

Michael J. Leonardi, MD; Marcia L. McGory, MD; Clifford Y. Ko, MD

Arch Surg. 2007;142:863-869.

Objective  To explore hospital comparison Web sites for general surgery based on: (1) a systematic Internet search, (2) Web site quality evaluation, and (3) exploration of possible areas of improvement.

Design  A systematic Internet search was performed to identify hospital quality comparison Web sites in September 2006. Publicly available Web sites were rated on accessibility, data/statistical transparency, appropriateness, and timeliness. A sample search was performed to determine ranking consistency.

Results  Six national hospital comparison Web sites were identified: 1 government (Hospital Compare [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services]), 2 nonprofit (Quality Check [Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations] and Hospital Quality and Safety Survey Results [Leapfrog Group]), and 3 proprietary sites (names withheld). For accessibility and data transparency, the government and nonprofit Web sites were best. For appropriateness, the proprietary Web sites were best, comparing multiple surgical procedures using a combination of process, structure, and outcome measures. However, none of these sites explicitly defined terms such as complications. Two proprietary sites allowed patients to choose ranking criteria. Most data on these sites were 2 years old or older. A sample search of 3 surgical procedures at 4 hospitals demonstrated significant inconsistencies.

Conclusions  Patients undergoing surgery are increasingly using the Internet to compare hospital quality. However, a review of available hospital comparison Web sites shows suboptimal measures of quality and inconsistent results. This may be partially because of a lack of complete and timely data. Surgeons should be involved with quality comparison Web sites to ensure appropriate methods and criteria.

Author Affiliations: Department of Surgery, The David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Association Between Hospital-Reported Leapfrog Safe Practices Scores and Inpatient Mortality
Kernisan et al.
JAMA 2009;301:1341-1348.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Public Reporting of Quality Data for Stroke: Is It Measuring Quality?
Kelly et al.
Stroke 2008;39:3367-3371.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Defining a high performance healthcare organisation
Agins and Holden
BMJ 2007;335:1055-1056.
FULL TEXT