Health Consumer Powerhouse Blog

It is very important that patients can find updated and understandable information, so for this reason an european web-site is perfect. But it must be in the european languages, since there are many persons who only understand their mothertongue.

I agree patients have a right to know how there center ‘scores’ or ‘ranks’ but it has to be made clear that you can’t compare apples and pears…
Clinics have different groups of patients, which may influence the survival and general health results.
For cystic fibrosis for instance, a very good clinic can also have a lung transplant programme. This means that they will treat more severely ill patients (often also patients coming from other clinics when their lungs are already badly affected)… If you would look at their overall results they may have less good results than other clinics, not because they are not a good or even the best clinic, but because patients with bad lung results will come to their clinic for their transplant programme.
Another clinic may be more specialised in gastro-enterological (stomach) problems and thus have worse results in that field because patients with more severe stomach problems will come to this clinic. It also depends on the general age, the mutations of the patients etc.
This means that only the overall results are not always a good indicator to show which clinic is giving the best treatment.

Whereas benchmarking of hospitals is a viabke tool for use of health practitioners, health insurance services/companies, puplic health desicion makers it is not useful and/or applicable for the information of patients. In many health systems in europe, patients do not have a choice of hospitals but are allocated to the nearest providing the service needed. In these cases benchmarking/ranking would be of no help but only heavely discourage patients in trust to gain good services

what we see in practice is that patients start discussing among each other and give references to health centers as well as physicians. In a modern way of choosing and ‘purchasing services’ (even health care services), the patient/consumer tends to follow the Y-generation in a 3-D approach: Discover – Discuss – Decide. Even if the authorities will not publish a ranking, the direct ‘client’ of these services will discuss and publish his/her satisfaction and even more his/her disappointment. Especially where health care is a matter, the impact of ‘spreading my level of satisfaction’ seems to happen more often than when buying other services or goods in a ‘consumer related transaction’; our conclusion is that ranking is happening – unofficially – and it would be a good progress in qualitative health care it the authorities would be more active in ranking (after objective testing).

Great!

Hello everyone,

Germany hast one website calles White List (Weisse Liste). This website is the result of a project from the Bertelsmann Foundation and the major umbrella organisations of German consumers and patients. Since June 2008 more than 10,000 users search on the website to find the most suitable hospital.
The main source of data are the quality reports which German hospitals have to publish every two years.

1. These portals will become quite common and a trusted source for patient choice in a few years time, when people learn about them and get accustomed to consulting them.
What we can see is that younger people search in the internet and older people do is well. But the older generation often needs help from their children or even grandchilden. More than one third of our users search not for themselves but for friends, relatives or collegues.
2. For a real break through such portals must become far more user-friendly, regarding content and design.
–> from the beginning on the Weisse Liste focused on the specific disease or treatment and only shows the relevant information without using medical terms
–> it is difficult and cost intensive to “go with the time” but indeed, user-friendliness must be a even stronger focus in the future
3. For a real break through such portals must welcome reporting by patients about their experience and how they rank provider performance.
–> yes, patients first ask friends and relatives about their opinion of this specific hospital. Patient reporting must be included in a website but on a good methodogical basis.
4. As choice in healthcare is a subtle and complicated process, the kind of information such portals provide will never become more than one of many sources to support patient choice.
–> I personally agree but I think that the impact of the quality data will be even stronger in the future.