Quality assessment is the focus of many healthcare initiatives. Yet, it is not well understood how the type of information used in decision support tools to enable judgments of quality based on data impacts the accuracy, consistency, and reliability of judgments made by physicians. Comparative pooled information could allow physicians to judge the quality of their practice by making comparisons with other practices or other specific populations of patients. In this study, resident physicians were provided with varying types of information derived from pooled patient datasets: quality component measures at the individual and group level, a qualitative interpretation of the quality measures using percentile rank, and an aggregate composite quality score. Thirty-two participants viewed 30 quality profiles consisting of information applicable to the practice of 30 deidentified resident physicians. Those provided with quality component measures and a qualitative interpretation of the quality measures (rankings) judged quality of care more similarly to experts and were more internally consistent compared with participants who were provided with quality component measures alone. Reliability between participants was significantly less for those who were provided with a composite quality score compared with those who were not.

中文翻译：

---

汇总比较信息对质量判断的影响

质量评估是许多医疗保健计划的重点。然而，人们还不清楚决策支持工具中使用的信息类型如何根据数据进行质量判断，从而影响医生判断的准确性、一致性和可靠性。比较汇集的信息可以让医生通过与其他实践或其他特定患者人群进行比较来判断他们的实践质量。在这项研究中，住院医师获得了来自合并患者数据集的不同类型的信息：个人和组级别的质量分量测量、使用百分位等级对质量测量的定性解释以及综合综合质量得分。32 名参与者查看了 30 份质量概况，其中包含适用于 30 名身份不明的住院医师实践的信息。那些提供质量组成测量和质量测量（排名）的定性解释的人对护理质量的判断更类似于专家，与仅提供质量组成测量的参与者相比，内部一致性更高。与未获得综合质量评分的受试者相比，获得综合质量评分的受试者之间的可靠性显着降低。那些提供质量组成测量和质量测量（排名）的定性解释的人对护理质量的判断更类似于专家，与仅提供质量组成测量的参与者相比，内部一致性更高。与未获得综合质量评分的受试者相比，获得综合质量评分的受试者之间的可靠性显着降低。那些提供质量组成测量和质量测量（排名）的定性解释的人对护理质量的判断更类似于专家，与仅提供质量组成测量的参与者相比，内部一致性更高。与未获得综合质量评分的受试者相比，获得综合质量评分的受试者之间的可靠性显着降低。