Table 3.
Association between attitudes towards quality measures and hospital performance ˆ
| Questions | Performance Relative to National Average*** | Mortality | Readmission | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % Strongly Agree/Agreeˆ | (SE) | % Strongly Agree/Agreeˆ | (SE) | ||
| 1.Public reporting of these performance measures stimulates QI activities at my institution | Better | 77 | (2.2) | 89 | (1.6) |
| At | 73 | (2.5) | 83 | (2.1) | |
| Worse | 70 | (2.4) | 81 | (2.1) | |
|
| |||||
| p-value1 | 0.62 | 0.19 | |||
|
| |||||
| 2.Our hospital is able to influence performance on these measures | Better | 86 | (1.8) | 89 | (1.6) |
| At | 76 | (2.4) | 90 | (1.6) | |
| Worse | 75 | (2.3) | 89 | (1.7) | |
|
| |||||
| p-value1 | 0.18 | 0.85 | |||
|
| |||||
| 6.Measured differences are large enough to Better differentiate between hospitals (i.e., they are meaningful) | Better | 53* | (2.6) | 55** | (2.6) |
| At | 35* | (2.6) | 44 | (2.8) | |
| Worse | 38 | (2.6) | 43 | (2.7) | |
|
| |||||
| p-value1 | 0.02 | 0.007 | |||
|
| |||||
| 9.Hospitals may attempt to maximize their Better performance primarily by altering documentation and coding practices | Better | 45 | (2.7) | 43* | (2.7) |
| At | 44 | (2.8) | 48* | (2.8) | |
| Worse | 44 | (2.8) | 48 | (2.8) | |
|
| |||||
| p-value1 | 0.05 | 0.01 | |||
ˆ
weighted % strongly agree/agree (unadjusted)
1
p-value from model adjusting for teaching status, urban/rural location, small/medium/large bedsize, and respondent job title
*
adjusted levels differ, Bonferroni adjusted pairwise test p<0.05
**
adjusted level differs from other two levels, Bonferroni adjusted pairwise test p<.05
***
labels of better, at, and worse respectively correspond to better-than-, as-, and worse-than-expected quality performance