English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Hospital performance quality assessments inform patients, providers, payers, and purchasers in making healthcare decisions. These assessments have been developed by government, private and non-profit organizations, and academic institutions. Given the number and variability in available assessments, a knowledge gap exists regarding what assessments are available and how each assessment measures quality to identify top performing hospitals. This study aims to: (a) comprehensively identify current hospital performance assessments, (b) compare quality measures from each methodology in the context of the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) six domains of  STEEEP  ( safety ,  timeliness ,  effectiveness ,  efficiency ,  equitable , and  patient-centeredness ), and (c) formulate policy recommendations that improve value-based, patient-centered care to address identified gaps.    Methods  A scoping review was conducted using a systematic search of MEDLINE and the grey literature along with handsearching to identify studies that provide assessments of US-based hospital performance whereby the study cohort examined a minimum of 250 hospitals in the last two years (2017–2019).    Results  From 3058 unique records screened, 19 hospital performance assessments met inclusion criteria. Methodologies were analyzed across each assessment and measures were mapped to  STEEEP . While  safety  and  effectiveness  were commonly identified measures across assessments,  efficiency , and  patient-centeredness  were less frequently represented.  Equity  measures were also limited to risk- and severity-adjustment methods to balance patient characteristics across populations, rather than stand-alone indicators to evaluate health disparities that may contribute to community-level inequities.    Conclusions  To further improve health and healthcare value-based decision-making, there remains a need for methodological transparency across assessments and the standardization of consensus-based measures that reflect the IOM’s quality framework. Additionally, a large opportunity exists to improve the assessment of health equity in the communities that hospitals serve.

U.S. hospital performance methodologies: a scoping review to identify opportunities for crossing the quality chasm