Comparing providers' performance: problems in making the "report card" analogy fit

Abstract

This article examines the applicability of a "report card" strategy as a means of differentiating among providers on the basis of performance. The specific focus is on the potential effect of differences in data collection processes on the meaningfulness of subsequent comparisons among similar types of providers. Variations in reported nosocomial infection rates are analyzed in light of differences in reported surveillance practices; data for similar nursing units are analyzed as well. Thirty-one rural, rural referral, and urban acute care hospitals in the midwest participated in the study. The reported nosocomial infection rates for different types of nursing units and different hospital groups varied substantially. Likewise, there were marked variations in the nosocomial infection surveillance practices at the hospitals, which were found to explain some of the variation in the reported nosocomial infection rates for specific types of nursing units and nosocomial infections. The study conclude that differences in data collection processes may result in incorrect conclusions about differences in the quality of care provided by various providers.