These results may come in a variety of forms, ranging from aggregated study results to individual results to incidental findings. Clinical investigators, public health advocates, and institutional review boards have been struggling to develop appropriate policies on how to return results to patients involved in research studies. What, ultimately, are the ways in which public reporting can be shaped to improve quality of care, transparency, and outcomes?

Also, there may be potential unintended consequences of public reporting, such as adverse selection, that may actually worsen clinical outcomes. For example, risk adjustment tools may lack the refinement necessary to yield sound results, forcing a delicate balance between providing more information to the public with only limited context. However, the enormous effort and expense supporting public reporting have raised questions about whether such programs actually improve public health, or may even be misleading or harmful. pneumonia, heart failure) and outcomes of cardiac procedures. Hospitals now dedicate substantial resources towards reporting requirements for measures such as mortality for selected conditions (e.g. Public reporting has been proposed as a tool for improving the transparency and quality of health care delivery. Promoting Accurate and Useful Public Reporting on Physicians

Harvard medical conferences 2016