In the United States, hospital rating system usefulness is limited by heterogeneity and conflicting results. US News Best Hospitals, Vizient Quality and Accountability Study, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Star Rating, Leapfrog Hospital Safety Grade, and the Truven Top 100 Hospitals ratings were compared using Spearman correlations. Rank aggregation was used to combine the scores generating a Quality Composite Rank (QCR). The highest correlation between rating systems was shown between the Leapfrog Safety Grade and the CMS Star Rating. In a proportional odds logistic regression, a greater discordance between the CMS Star Rating, Vizient rank, US News, and Leapfrog was associated with a lower overall rank in the QCR. Lack of transparency and understanding about the differences and similarities for these hospital ranking systems complicates use of the measures. By combining the results of these ranking systems into a composite, the measurement of hospital quality can be simplified.
SinaikoADEastmanDRosenthalMB.How report cards on physicians, physician groups, and hospitals can have greater impact on consumer choices. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31:602-611.
2.
FindlaySD.Consumers’ interest in provider ratings grows, and improved report cards and other steps could accelerate their use. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35:688-696.
3.
GerteisMGerteisJSNewmanDKoepkeC.Testing consumers’ comprehension of quality measures using alternative reporting formats. Health Care Financ Rev. 2007;28:31-45.
4.
HibbardJHSlovicPJewettJJ.Informing consumer decisions in health care: implications from decision-making research. Milbank Q. 1997;75:395-414.
5.
HibbardJHJewettJJ.Will quality report cards help consumers?Health Aff (Millwood). 1997;16:218-228.
6.
Edgman-LevitanSClearyPD.What information do consumers want and need?Health Aff (Millwood). 1996;15:42-56.
7.
BilimoriaKYBarnardC.The new CMS hospital quality star ratings: the stars are not aligned. JAMA. 2016;316:1761-1762.
SosunovEAEgorovaNNLinH-M, et al. The impact of hospital size on CMS hospital profiling. Med Care. 2016;54:373-379.
10.
HotaBWebbTASteinBDGuptaRAnsellDLateefO.Consumer rankings and health care: toward validation and transparency. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2016;42:439-446.
11.
JoyntKEJhaAK.Characteristics of hospitals receiving penalties under the hospital readmissions reduction program. JAMA. 2013;309:342-343.
AustinJMJhaAKRomanoPS, et al. National hospital ratings systems share few common scores and may generate confusion instead of clarity. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34:423-430.
14.
HalasyamaniLKDavisMM. Conflicting measures of hospital quality: ratings from “Hospital Compare” versus “Best Hospitals.” J Hosp Med. 2007;2:128-134.
15.
DonabedianA.The quality of care. JAMA. 1988;260:1743-1748.
D’AmbrosioAMazzeoGIorioCSicilianoR.A differential evolution algorithm for finding the median ranking under the Kemeny axiomatic approach. Comput Oper Res. 2017;82:126-138.
23.
HwangWDerkJLaClairMPazH.Finding order in chaos: a review of hospital ratings. Am J Med Qual. 2016;31:147-155.
24.
ShahianDMWolfREIezzoniLIKirleLNormandSLT. Variability in the measurement of hospital-wide mortality rates. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2530-2539.
