What effect does physician "profiling" have on inpatient physician satisfaction and hospital length of stay?

BACKGROUND: 2002 marked the first time that the rate of hospital spending in the United States outpaced the overall health care spending rate of growth since 1991. As hospital spending continues to grow and as reimbursement for hospital expenses has moved towards the prospective payment system, there is still increasing pressure to reduce costs. Hospitals have a major incentive to decrease resource utilization, including hospital length of stay. We evaluated whether physician profiling affects physician satisfaction and hospital length of stay, and assessed physicians' views concerning hospital cost containment and the quality of care they provide. METHODS: To determine if physician profiling affects hospital length of stay and/or physician satisfaction, we used quasi-experimental with before-versus-after and intervention-versus-control comparisons of length of stay data collected at an intervention and six control hospitals. Intervention hospital physicians were informed their length of stay would be compared to their peers and were given a questionnaire assessing their experience. RESULTS: Nearly half of attending pre-profiled physicians felt negative about the possibility of being profiled, while less than one-third of profiled physicians reported feeling negative about having been profiled. Nearly all physicians greatly enjoyed their ward month. Length of stay at the profiled site decreased by an additional 1/3 of a day in the profiling year, compared to the non-profiled sites (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A relatively non-instrusive profiling intervention modestly reduced length of stay without adversely affecting physician satisfaction

Primary Care Physicians' Use of Lumbar Spine Imaging Tests: Effects of Guidelines and Practice Pattern Feedback

OBJECTIVE: To reduce variability in primary care physicians' use of procedures for imaging the lumbar spine. DESIGN: Controlled intervention using clinical practice guideline and practice pattern feedback. STUDY SAMPLE: Sixty-seven internists and 28 family practitioners in a large, group-model HMO. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Intervention group physicians received the clinical practice guideline for low back pain, followed after 4 months by three bimonthly feedback reports on their current use rates for lumber spine x-rays and computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scans of the lumbar spine. Control group physicians received neither the guideline nor the feedback reports. Automated radiology utilization data were used to compare intervention and control group physicians' changes in use rates and variability in use rates over the course of the study period. Neither the guideline alone nor the guideline plus feedback was associated with a significant decrease in use rates or in the variability in use rates for the lumbar spine imaging procedures under study. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical practice guidelines and practice pattern feedback fail to achieve their goals when features of the practice setting and patient expectations and behavior are not identified and addressed