Quality Indicaters for Treatment Outcomes of Regional Medical Institutions

This paper outlines what information can be utilized to compare the treatment outcomes of the acute care hospitals in regions (secondary medical-care area). Specifically, we point out existing limitations in the use of data. In addition, this paper describes leading quality indicators overseas. Some overseas public institutions publish quality indicators (QI) for each medical institution. They thus make treatment outcomes more visible to the public and improve the quality of treatment at each medical institution. One example is the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) for examination and evaluation used for primary care in the UK. This paper states lessons we can learn from the QOF. In Japan, there is no evaluation of quality of care for each clinic, and the only public data are the treatment results since FY2006 of selected hospitals which adopt the payment system known as the Diagnosis Procedure Combination/Per-Diem Payment System (DPC/PDPS). Even this information is limited, as statistics for minor diseases and for small cases are dropped. In addition, the reporting quality of the personal data is diffused, as there are no uniform standards for the seriousness of the disease and complications. We conclude that the mandatory disclosure of fully unmasked set of aggregate information is vital as regional healthcare indicators. To ensure the quality of the data, we also need to impose unified reporting rules of personal treatment data.