Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1162-1170 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | HEALTH POLICY |
| Volume | 120 |
| Issue number | 10 |
| Early online date | 13 Sept 2016 |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Oct 2016 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Abstract
Objectives Since 2009, German nursing homes have been evaluated regularly by an external institution with quality report cards published online. We follow recent debates and argue that most of the information in the report cards does not reliably measure quality of care. However, a subset of up to seven measures does. Do these measures that reflect “risk factors” improve over time? Method Using a sample of more than 3000 German nursing homes with information on two waves, we assume that the introduction of public reporting is an exogenous institutional change and apply before–after-estimations to obtain estimates for the relation between public reporting and quality. Results We find a significant improvement of the identified risk factors. Also, the two employed outcome quality indicators improve significantly. The improvements are driven by nursing homes with low quality in the first evaluation. Conclusion To the extent that this can be interpreted as evidence that public reporting positively affects the (reported) quality in nursing homes, policy makers should carefully choose indicators reflecting care-sensitive quality.
Keywords
- Information, Long-term care, Nursing homes, Public reporting, Quality
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Medicine(all)
- Health Policy
Sustainable Development Goals
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: HEALTH POLICY, Vol. 120, No. 10, 01.10.2016, p. 1162-1170.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Public reporting and the quality of care of German nursing homes
AU - Herr, Annika
AU - Nguyen, Thu Van
AU - Schmitz, Hendrik
N1 - Funding Information: We thank Ulrich Heimeshoff, Florian Heiß, Christian Pfarr, and Amela Saric as well as participants of the DICE brown-bag seminar 2014, the CINCH Academy 2014, the DIBOGS workshop in Fürth 2014, and the EARIE conference in Munich 2015 for valuable comments. We also thank the editor and two anonymous referees for helpful comments to improve the paper. Financial support from the BMBF (grant number 01EH1102A ) is gratefully acknowledged.
PY - 2016/10/1
Y1 - 2016/10/1
N2 - Objectives Since 2009, German nursing homes have been evaluated regularly by an external institution with quality report cards published online. We follow recent debates and argue that most of the information in the report cards does not reliably measure quality of care. However, a subset of up to seven measures does. Do these measures that reflect “risk factors” improve over time? Method Using a sample of more than 3000 German nursing homes with information on two waves, we assume that the introduction of public reporting is an exogenous institutional change and apply before–after-estimations to obtain estimates for the relation between public reporting and quality. Results We find a significant improvement of the identified risk factors. Also, the two employed outcome quality indicators improve significantly. The improvements are driven by nursing homes with low quality in the first evaluation. Conclusion To the extent that this can be interpreted as evidence that public reporting positively affects the (reported) quality in nursing homes, policy makers should carefully choose indicators reflecting care-sensitive quality.
AB - Objectives Since 2009, German nursing homes have been evaluated regularly by an external institution with quality report cards published online. We follow recent debates and argue that most of the information in the report cards does not reliably measure quality of care. However, a subset of up to seven measures does. Do these measures that reflect “risk factors” improve over time? Method Using a sample of more than 3000 German nursing homes with information on two waves, we assume that the introduction of public reporting is an exogenous institutional change and apply before–after-estimations to obtain estimates for the relation between public reporting and quality. Results We find a significant improvement of the identified risk factors. Also, the two employed outcome quality indicators improve significantly. The improvements are driven by nursing homes with low quality in the first evaluation. Conclusion To the extent that this can be interpreted as evidence that public reporting positively affects the (reported) quality in nursing homes, policy makers should carefully choose indicators reflecting care-sensitive quality.
KW - Information
KW - Long-term care
KW - Nursing homes
KW - Public reporting
KW - Quality
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84995390458&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.09.004
DO - 10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.09.004
M3 - Article
C2 - 27671099
AN - SCOPUS:84995390458
VL - 120
SP - 1162
EP - 1170
JO - HEALTH POLICY
JF - HEALTH POLICY
SN - 0168-8510
IS - 10
ER -