A King’s Fund report published today has highlighted the benefits of measuring and reporting on quality of care, but also the significant risks.

Recommendations in Getting the Measure of Quality include getting clarity on the aims and needs of different audiences for quality measures, further engaging clinicians and putting in place an “effective national governance structure” for quality measures.

Lead author Veena Raleigh said: “A lot of focus has been put around measurement and I’m not sure all the angles have always been thought through and given the consideration they need to be given.

“If one conflates what we are going to do with information, and the different ways patients will interpret it, there are risks.”

She said the hospital standardised mortality ratios, published on NHS Choices, were a high profile example of information that had been misinterpreted. There are many others whose meaning is disputed, such as patient satisfaction scores, which some trusts believe are affected by their patient mix.

The report says: “While greater public reporting can drive improvements in healthcare quality, there are also risks of misinterpretation and confusion, among patients and NHS organisations alike, from inadequately qualified use of data.

“Patients and the public could be misled and alarmed by league tables that need cautious interpretation, and NHS staff could become demoralised and disaffected by adverse publicity that they may perceive to be unwarranted if there is uncertainty or disagreement around the data.”

Topics