Skip to content

This content is more than five years old

Blog

Will a single rating for hospitals limit or support patient choice?

  • 12 Mar 2013
  • 4-min read

Authors

I've been planning a weekend city break in Europe and wondering which hotel to stay in. I looked at the 3 and 4 star hotels on the tourist information site. They varied hugely in price and I couldn't tell which ones had good customer service. I asked some friends and family who had been there, but no-one had been recently. I read some of the reviews on TripAdvisor. In the end I booked one that was close to the city centre with a swimming pool and availability for the dates I needed. No-one had written a bad review so, while it’s only 3 star, I hope it will be fine.

Now read this again but substituting hospital for hotel. I need major surgery and am wondering which hospital to attend. I looked at the 3 and 4 star hospitals on the official rating site. The clinical outcomes varied hugely and I couldn't tell which ones had good patient care. I asked some friends and family who had been there before but it was for a different procedure. I read some of the reviews on Patient Opinion. In the end I booked one that was close to home and that had the earliest availability. No-one had written a bad review so, while it is only 3 star, I hope it will be fine.

The Nuffield Trust has been leading a health and social care ratings review for the government on the feasibility and desirability of a summary rating for hospitals and other care providers. They are due to report later this month. In our submission to the review we highlighted the challenges of producing a single summative measure. The above scenario illustrates the limitations of such ratings to support patient choice.

The reality is that patient choice is limited. It applies only to those patients who are referred to a specialist. Many patients are not aware of their right to choose and are not routinely offered choice by their GPs. If these patients then require elective treatment they are not usually offered a further choice of where to have the procedure. Most patients never have the time to consider their options as they need urgent treatment.

Even if they do have the opportunity to choose, different patients value different things. While many put safety and effectiveness of clinical care before location/ proximity and patient experience, in reality most choose to go local. A summative rating gives weightings that reflect the values of those constructing it, not necessarily the information valuable to patients.

Patients also want information specific to them and their condition. If you are going in for a heart operation you want to know the outcomes for patients having the same procedure, not the average outcomes for all patients undergoing surgery in the hospital. The NHS Commissioning Board has committed to publishing more of this detailed clinical information on individual surgeons. However, this information is often complex for patients to interpret as it is usually presented as probabilities and is adjusted for case mix. Hospitals are complex organisations providing a wide range of services, reducing these to a single measure makes the information less useful and is likely to mask a multitude of sins.

In reality, many patients ask their GP or friends and family for advice. Personal testimonies such as those now on NHS Choices and Patient Opinion have a powerful effect on decisions but they skew perceptions, even when presented alongside objective data on quality. It is likely that these will play an increasing role in patient decision-making in future but this does not necessarily mean they will be well-informed decisions.

From April 2013, every NHS hospital will be required to ask patients in A&E and on the wards whether they would recommend the hospital to a friend or relative if they needed treatment. The so called family and friends test aims to get real-time patient feedback at ward level, but again its value is limited by its reporting as a summative score. It is the qualitative statements behind the scores that are important; they can be acted on by clinical teams and the organisation can analyse themes which might suggest systemic problems or issues which need addressing.

The government is right to want to make more information about quality of care available to patients and the public. But the information must be tailored to individual preferences, at a level of detail that is relevant to the patient (ie, specialty level), presented in a way that is understandable and not skewed by qualitative perception. Ideally patients should also have the opportunity to discuss their decision with someone.

A more powerful reason for collecting and publishing data on quality is to drive improvements by providers. There is good evidence that this is enhanced when benchmarked data is published. The reputational effect on providers, particularly those who are poor performing, is a powerful driver of change. While no one would advocate a return to naming and shaming under the old star ratings, there is a role for public ratings if only to make boards sit up and pay attention to quality.