Hospital Rankings Contradictory, Cryptic, Confusing
Researchers challenge the usefulness of the plethora of perennial hospital rankings that are largely ignored beyond the executive suite and doctors' lounges.
Have hospital rankings reached the saturation point?
A research brief from the University of Michigan's Center for Healthcare Research & Transformation suggests that hospital rankings, ostensibly designed to enlighten healthcare consumers, have morphed into a confusing array of metrics and methodologies that are now largely ignored outside of the healthcare echo chamber.
"One of the overall messages we have is that we do have to take these rankings with a grain of salt because they measure different things and they do come out with different results when you compare them," says Kirsten Bondalapati, MPH, a co-author of the brief.
"Another thing we need to think about is how the consumer or patient perspective fits into this," Bondalapati says. "Some of the rankings are geared toward hospital quality improvements, and some are geared more toward patients, providing them information about what hospital to go to. One thing that could be improved is making those intentions a little clearer so we know what each ranking system is trying to do."
The research brief examined nine (yes, nine!) prominent hospital rankings that are published each year and found that individual hospitals ranked all over the board.
Among the findings:
- In 2012, 37% of hospitals were highly ranked on one of nine hospital ranking systems;
- In 2015, 53% of Michigan acute care hospitals received a high rank on at least one of nine hospital ranking systems, but only 22.5% received a high rank on at least two ranking systems;
- Consumers in a CHRT focus group said they don't use rankings to choose a hospital because the rankings do not always include information that they're interested in and are not presented in a consumer-friendly manner.