門診病人對醫院品質報告卡需求之初探

1
 !"#$%&"'#()* 2
 !"#$%!&'()*+,-./-.% 3
 !"! #$%&'()%*+
 !"2003
3
31
 !
"#2003
9
10
 !"#$2003
10
30

 !"#$%&&'()*+,-./ 250
 !"#$#"%&'()*
 !(02)23452506 * 13

 !"

 1985
 !"#$%&' 1995
 !"#$%&
 !"#$%&'(
 !"#$%&'()*+,-.$
 !"#$%&'()*%&+,-.
 !"#$%
&'()*+,-&.
 !"#$%&'()*+,-.%'
 !"#$%&'()*!+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+!,-./
 !"#$
 !"#$%&'()*+,-.
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'!"(
)*+,-.
 ! "#$ %&'()*+,
 !!"#$%&'()*+,-./

 !"#$%&'()*+,-.



1,2

 !

2

 !

3




 !"#$%&'()*+,-./012#345634#7869
 !"#$%&'()*+,-. /0)1

 !"#$%&$'()
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:

 !
1200
 !"#$% 926
 !"# 77.17%
 !"#$ 55.0%
 !"
 !"#$%&'()*+,$-.'/0123456789:;<=>?@A
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;0<=>?@A
 !"#$%&'()*+,-.

 !"#$%&'()*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./012
 34./56.78901 :
 !"#$%&
 !"#$%&'()*+,-)$%./

(Report Card)(Shepperd & Charnock, 1999)

 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*$%+,-.
 !"#$%&'()*+,*+-.
 !"#$% Epstein
 !"#$%&'
 !
 !"#$%&'()*(Epstein, 1995)
Slovensky, Fottler and Houser (1998)


 !"#$%&'()*+,-.
 ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / (Slovensky et al., 1998)
 !"#$
 ! (National Committee for Quality Assurance, NCQA)
 !"
 !"#
 !"#$%&'()*+
Bodenheimer (1999)
 !"#
 !"#$%&'
 !"#$%&'()*+,-.+,
 ! " # $ % & ' ( )(Bodenheimer, 1999)
 !"#$%&'()!*+,
 !
 !"#$%&'()*+,
 !"#$%

 !"#$%&'()*+,-.
 !"#$(1)
 !"#$%&'(
 !"(2)
 !"#$%&'()*
 (3)
 !"#$%&'()*+,
 !"#(4)
 !"#$%&'()
 !(5)
 !"#$%&'()

 !"#$%&'()*+,(Slovensky, Fottler, & Houser, 1998)
 ! " # $
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !" #$%&'()*+,-.
 !"#$%& !'()*+,-.
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+,-.!"
 ! " # $ % &  ' ( (Physician Profiling)

!"#$%&'()*
 !"#$%&#'()*"+,-.
 !"#$%&'()*+,-
.

 !"#$%&'()*+,-.
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+, !-.
 !"#$%&'()*+,-
./
 !"#$%&'"#$()*+,-
 !"#$%&'()#$
*+,-
 !"#$%&'
30 !"#$%&'()#$
*+,-
 !"#
 !"#$%&'(!"#$)*+,
 !"#$ 28
 !"#$!"%
 !"#$%&'()!%*+(),
 !"#$%&'("#$%)*+,
 !"#$%!&'( !)(Maxwell, 1998
Anderson, 1999
Slovensky et al., 1998
HealthGrades, 2002
Fogg, 1998
Romano et al., 1995)

 !"#$%&
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0*
 !"#$%&"#$'()*

 ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + * ,
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./ (HealthGrades, 2002
Hibbard & Jewett, 1997
Harris, 1994
Hass, 2001
Schultz, Thiede, Call, Feldman, & Christianson, 2001)

 !"#$%&'()*+,-.
 !"#$%&'()*+(Schauffler & Mordavsky, 2001)
 !"#$%&'
 !"#$%&$' !"#()(Romano,

Rainwater, & Antonius, 1999
Jaklevic, 1999)
 !"#$%&'()*+,-
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./%
 !"#$%&'()*+,-.(Royal Women's Hospital, 2000)
 !"#$
 !"#$%&'($)*+ !"
 !"#$%&'()*+,-.
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*"#+,-.
 !"#$%&$'()*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+,-../
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !" 2002
 504
 !


 !"#$%&'$%(!)*+,

 !"#$%&'()*+,-+./
 !"#$%&'()*+, -./
 !"#$%&
 2002

 !
 !"#$%&'(!)*+,-./0
 !"#$%& 1.
 !"#$%
 !"#$%&2.
 !"#$%&' 3.
 !"#$%&'()*+,4.

 !"#$%&'()*+5.
 !
 !"#$%&'()"*+,- 6.

 !"#$%&'()*+,-.()
 !"#$%&'()!*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()'*+,-./
 !"#$

 !"

 !"#
 !"#$%&'()*+,-.
 !"#$%!&'() *
+!"
 !"#$%&
'!"%&
(
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./
2002
8
19
 2002
10
20

 !"#$%&'()*+,-.,/
 !"#$%&
'( 10
 !"
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$ 200
 !"#$%&"
 !"#$ 150
 !"#$% 1200

 !"#
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+,"#-./
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()"#*+,-.
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+
,-.
 !"#$%&
 !'()*+,
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+,'()-.
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+,-(2001)
 !
 !" #$%&'()*+,-
 !"#$%&'"#()*+ !,
 !"#$ 3
 ! "#$%& 3
 !"#$%&' 1
 !"#"$
 !"#$!%&'!()*+,-

 !"#$%& CVI (Content Validity Index)
 0.8
 !"#$%&'()
 !
"#$%& 0.8
 !"#$
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()* 15
 !
 !"#$(pilot test)
 !"#$
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+,-Cronbach’s Alpha
 0.8107~0.9455
 !"#
 !"#$%&'()*+,-.*+
 !"#$%&'1.
 !"#$%
 !"#$%&'()*+2.
 !
 !"#$%&'()*+,-.
 22

3.
 !"#$%&'()
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !
 !"#$%&%'()*+,-
 !"#$%&'()*+,- 1.

 !"#$%&'()*+,-./*
 !"#$%&'()*+ ,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+(,!-%
 !"#$%&'(#)*+
 !
 !"#$%2.
 !"#$%&'
 !"#$%&'( 14
 !"
 !"#
$%&'()*+*,

 !"#$% 30
 !"#$%&
 !"#$%
 &'()3.

 !"#$%&'()*+,-(./
 !"#$#%&'()*+,-
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./(

!"#$
%&
'()

 !"#$%&'()*
 !" SPSS10.0
 !"#$
 !"#$%&'()*+#$%&,
 !"#$%&#'("#)*+,-
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
(multiple logistic regression)
 !
 !"#$%&'()*+,-'.
 !

 !"


 !"#$%&'()*+,

 !"#$% 1200
 ! 1006
 !"# 83.83%
 !"#$%&
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&' ()*+),-.
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
34
 ! " # $ % & ' ( ) (data checking)
 !"#$%&
'( 46

 !"#$%&'( 926
 !"#
77.17%
 !"#$%&'() 560

60.5%
 !"#$ 20
 59

 37.16
 !" 7.84
 !"
#

! 30-39
 467
 ! " 50.4%
 !" 687
 74.2%
 !
 !"#$% 358
 !" 38.7%

 !"# 40000
 60000
 437

 ! 47.2%
 !"#$%&'()
 !"#$%&'()*+,-. 548
 59.2%
 !"#$%&'()*
883
 95.4%
 671
 !"#

 !" 72.5%
 !"#$%&' A
 391
 !" 42.2%
 !"#
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 514
 !" 55.5%
 !"#
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+,-.
 !"#$%&'()#* 68
 7.4%
 !" 441
 47.6%
 !
328
 35.4%
 !"# 83

9.0%
 !"# 6
 0.6%

 !"#$%&$%'() 509
 55.0%

 !"#$%&'()(n=926)
 !"




 366 39.5

 560 60.5
(
 ! 37.16
 !"# 7.84
)

20-29
155 16.7

30-39
467 50.4

40-49
238 25.7

50
 66 7.1
 !

 687 74.2

 239 25.8
 !

(
)
38 4.1

 (
) 203 21.9

 284 30.7

 358 38.7

 !"# 43 4.6
 !"#$

 ! 106 11.4

20000
(
)
 38 4.1

20001
~39999
258 27.9

40000
~59999
437 47.2

60000
~79999
86 9.3

80000
(
)
 1 0.1

 !"#$%&'()*+,(n=926)
 !"


 !"#

 ! 13 1.4

 274 29.6

 548 59.2

 86 9.3

 !" 5 0.5
 !"#$%&'()

 43 4.6

 883 95.4
 !"#$%&

 671 72.5

 255 27.5
 !"#$

A
391 42.2

B
376 40.6

C
110 11.9

D
29 3.1

E
16 1.7

E
 4 0.4
 !"#$"%&'()*+,-

 159 17.2

 514 55.5

 108 11.7

 ! 53 5.7

 ! 92 9.9


 !"#$%&'()*+,-

 !"#$%&'()*+,-.
 !"#$%&'()* 218
 23.6%
 ! " # $ % & ' 300
 32.4%
 !"#$ 104
 11.2%

 !"#$%&"'()*+,-. 201
 21.7%
 !"#$%& 103

11.1%
 !"#$%&'()*+,
 !"#$%& 56.0%


 !"#$%&'()*+,-

 !"#$%&'()*+,-.
 !"#$%&' ( !)*+
 !"#$%&'(!") 1.

 !
"#$%&'()*+(73.8%


 !"#
$%&'(61.2%)
 !
 !"#$%&'(57.1%)
 !"#
 !"#(49.6%)
 !"#$%&'
 !"(45.7%)
 !"#(43.5%)

 !"#$%(42.3%)
 !"# 2.

 !"# $%&'()(60.8%)

 14
 !"#(54.2%)
 !"#
 !"(52.6%)
 ! 30
 !
(50.9%)
 !"#$%(50.5%)

 !"(49.0%)
 !"(46.4%)

 !(41.5%)
 !"#$%(24.6%)

 !" 3.
 !"#$!%&'(
(74.6%)
 !"#"$%(71.4%)

 !"#(62.2%)
 !"#$%&'
(60.3%)
 !(58.1%)
 !"#$
 (52.5%)
 !"#$%&'
()
 !"#$"#%&'()* 60%

 !"#$%
&'()* 1.

(74.6%)
2.
 !"#$(73.8%)
3.
 !"!#$(71.4%)
4.
 !
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./01(n=926)



 !




!
" n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) 1.
 !"#$ 197(21.3%) 486(52.5%) 200(21.6%) 28(3.0%) 15(1.6%) 2.
 !"#
$% 215(23.2%) 352(38.0%) 284(30.7%) 59(6.4%) 16(1.7%)
 3.
 !"#$%&' 144(15.6%) 385(41.5%) 311(33.6%) 70(7.6%) 16(1.7%)
 4.
 !"#$!%&' 130(14.1%) 329(35.5%) 383(41.4%) 80(8.6%) 4(0.4%) 5.
 !"#$%&' 158(17.1%) 265(28.6%) 389(42.0%) 101(10.9%) 13(1.4%)
 ! 6.
 !" 124(13.4%) 279(30.1%) 416(44.9%) 61(6.6%) 46(5.0%) 7.
 !"#$%& 99(10.7%) 293(31.6%) 443(47.8%) 77(8.3%) 14(1.5%)

(62.2%)
5.
 !"#
$%&
(61.2%)
6.
 !"(60.8%)
7.

 !"#$%(60.3%)


 !"#$%&'()*+,-

 !"#$%&'()*+,-.
 !"#$%&'()* 607
 65.6%
 ! " # $ % & 220
 23.8%
 !"#$ 10
 1.0%

 52
 5.6%
 !" 37
 4.0%
 !"#$% 0


 !"#$%&'()*+,-
 !"#$%&
 !"#$%&'()*+,-)
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./01(n=926)



 !




!
" n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) 1.
 !" 225(24.3%) 338(36.5%) 314(33.9%) 43(4.6%) 6(0.6%) 2.
 ! 14
 !" 221(23.9%) 281(30.3%) 322(34.8%) 88(9.5%) 14(1.5%)
3.
 !"#$%$& 186(20.1%) 301(32.5%) 327(35.3%) 88(9.5%) 24(2.6%)
4.
 30
 !" 171(18.5%) 300(32.4%) 341(36.8%) 89(9.6%) 25(2.7%) 5.
 !"#$ 194(21.0%) 274(29.5%) 348(37.6%) 84(9.1%) 26(2.8%) 6.
 !"#$ 144(15.6%) 309(33.4%) 380(41.0%) 68(7.3%) 25(2.7%) 7.
 ! 172(18.6%) 258(27.9%) 326(35.2%) 147(15.9%) 23(2.5%) 8.
 !" 146(15.8%) 238(25.7%) 429(46.3%) 92(9.9%) 21(2.3%) 9.
 !"#$ 0(0.0%) 228(24.6%) 500(54.0%) 162(17.5%) 36(3.9%)

 !"#$%&'()*+,-.( n=926)



 !




!
" n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) 1.
 !" 245(26.5%) 446(48.1%) 182(19.7%) 38(4.1%) 15(1.6%) 2.
 !"!#$ 238(25.7%) 423(45.7%) 188(20.3%) 64(6.9%) 13(1.4%) 3.
 !"# 188(20.3%) 388(41.9%) 256(27.6%) 75(8.1%) 19(2.1%) 4.
 !"#$%&' 141(15.2%) 418(45.1%) 296(32.0%) 54(5.8%) 17(1.8%) 5.
 172(18.6%) 366(39.5%) 324(35.0%) 39(4.2%) 25(2.7%) 6.
 !"#$%& 143(15.4%) 344(37.1%) 364(39.3%) 63(6.8%) 12(1.3%)

 !"#$%&'() *+,-.
 !"#$%&'()*+,
 !
 ! "#$% &
 !

 !"#$%&'(%&)*+,(%

 !" #$%&'()(Multiple Logistic Regression)
 !"#$%&'
 !"#!$%&'!()*+!,-
 !"#$%&'()#*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+,-$./
 !"#$%&'()*(+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+,-&./
 !"#$%&'() 70.808 (df =18) p<0.001
 !"#$%&'()*+,

 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+,-+./
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0

 !"#$%&'()*+,-.
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./!
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$% 2.868 (p<0.05)
 !
 ! 2.868
 !"#$%&'()
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
1
 !"#$%&'()*+,-.
 !"#$%&'()# 2.868

 !"#$%&'( 20000
 !" 20001
 39999
 !"#$%&'(
 !"#$% 1.609 (p<0.05)
 !
 !" #$%&'()*+,-.$
 !"#$%&$'()*+,-./
 !"#$"%&'()*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+, 2.963 (p <0.001)

!"#$%&'%()*+
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 0.674 (p<0.05)


 !"#$%&'()
*+,
 !"#$%&'(
 !"#$%&'()*+,-.
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./'
249
 26.9%
 !"# 659

71.1%
 !"#$ 8
 0.9%

 !"# 10
 1.1%
 !"# 0
 !"#$%&'(")'*+,-908
 98.0%
 !"#$%&'(
 !"#$%&'$%()*+,-.
 !"#$%&'()*+,-.#/
 !" 332
 35.9%
 !"# 576
 62.1%
 !"#$ 7
 0.8%
 !"# 0
 !"#$ 11

1.2%
 !"#$%&'!(&)*
 !"# 908
 98.0%

 !"

 !
 !"#$%&' 55.0%
 !
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0 (1999)
 !"#$%&'()*
+,
 !"#$%&'( 59.3%
56.3%

 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+#,-.#
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./&
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+, -./

 !"#$%&'()*+,-./01234(n=926)
 !"#$%&'()*+, (
 =1
 ! =0)






!

"
 !
 χ2

 (95%
 !)
 -0.339 0.504 0.453

 !"#$

 -0.189 0.145 1.688 0.828 0.623 1.101

 !"50
 !

20-29
0.099 0.342 0.083 1.104 0.565 2.156

30-39
-0.324 0.296 1.195 0.723 0.404 1.293

40-49
-0.273 0.304 0.810 0.761 0.419 1.380
 !
 !"#$%

 0.137 0.171 0.645 1.147 0.821 1.602
 !
 !"#$(
)


 -0.002 0.184 0.000 0.998 0.696 1.431

 !" 0.076 0.177 0.182 1.078 0.762 1.526
 !"
 !"20000
(
)


20001
~39999
0.442 0.225 3.873* 1.556 1.002 2.417

40000
~59999
0.284 0.211 1.799 1.328 0.877 2.010

60000
 0.377 0.293 1.652 1.458 0.821 2.589
 !"#
 !"#$%

 0.402 0.316 1.626 1.496 0.806 2.776

 0.237 0.291 0.661 1.267 0.716 2.243
 !"#$
 !"#$

 1.084 0.427 6.440* 2.956 1.280 6.826
 !"#$%&
 !"#$

 0.142 0.156 0.824 1.152 0.848 1.565
 !"#$%&
 !"A
(
)


B
0.137 0.164 0.699 1.127 0.832 1.582

C
(
)
 -0.176 0.246 0.512 0.838 0.517 1.359
 !"#$"%&'()*+,-
 !"#$%

 ! 1.096 0.237 21.410*** 2.992 1.881 4.760

 -0.350 0.158 4.930* 0.705 0.518 0.960
 !"# 60.5%.

Cox & Snell R2 = 0.074 ; Nagelkerke R2 = 0.098 *p < 0.05
**p < 0.01
***p < 0.001

 =1
 ! =0

 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'
()*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./ (Hochhauser, 1998
Harris, 1994)

 !"#$%&'()*+,-.
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . (32.4%)
 !(23.6%)
 !"#$%
 ! " # $ % & (21.7%)
 ! " (11.2%)
 !"#$%(11.1%)
 !
 !"# $%&(2000)
 !(2001)
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+(Isaacs, 1996)
 !"#$%&'()*+,-
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"
#$%&'()*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'(
)*+
 !"#$%&'()*+,-.
 !"#$%&'()'(*+,-.
 !"#$%&'()*+,-.'/
 ! "#$%&'()*+%,-.
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#
$%&
'()*+,-!
 !"#$%&' ()*+",-.
 !"#$%&'()*+,-*./
 !"#(1997)
 !"#$%&'
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'() !*+,-.
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+*,-.
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+,-.-/
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'
 ! "# 1997


 !"#$%&'()*+,-,
 !"#$%&' 65.6%
 !"
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0 23.8%
 !"#"$%&'()*+,
 (2001)
 !"#$%&'
()
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$"%&'()*+,-.-
 !"#$%&'()*$+,-./
 !"#$#%&'()*+&,#$
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+,-.
 !"#$%&'()*+,-.
 !"#$%&'()*+$,-./
 ! 20000
 !" 20001
 39999
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./(2001)
 !"#$%#&'()*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+ !"#
 !"#$%&'()*+,-(1999)
 !"#$%&$'()*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+
,-

 !"#$%&'()*+,-./01
 !"#$"%&'()*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+(1999)

 !"#$%&'()*+,-./)
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0

 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+, -.(
 !"#$%&'%()*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+,-$./$
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()'* +,
-
 !"#$%&'%()*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'"()*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()'*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+,-
.
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+,-.(/
 !"#$%&'"()*+,-.
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./
 !"
#$%&'%()*+,!
 !"
 !"#$%&'()*+,-
 !"#$%&'()*+, 98.0%

 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'() 98.0%
 !
 !"#$%&'()'(*+,-.
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+,-%.

 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
(2001)
 !"#$%&'
()*+
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&
 1998

 !
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0

 2001

 ! (
)
 !"#$%&'
 !"#$%&' 55.0%
 !
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0

!"#$%&'()*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()
*+,-.)
 !"#$%&'!()*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+",-./
 !"#$%&'()*+$,-./
 !"#$%&'("#)*+,-#
 !"#$%&'"()$*+,-.
 !"#$%&'()(*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./"
 !"#$%&$'()*+,-./
 ! (
)
 !"#
 !"#$%&'()*+,-!
 !"#$%&'()*+,-
./
 !"#$%&'&()"*+,-.
 !"#$% !&'()*+,-
 !"#$%&'()*+,*-.
 !"#$%&'()*+,-.&/
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./$
 !"#$%
&'()*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+*,-".

 !"#$%&'()*+,
 !"#
 !"#$%&'()*+,-.
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+%$,-.
 !"#$%&'()*+,-
./
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./#
 !"#"$%&'()*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+,
-
 !"#$%&'()*+,-.!&
 !"#$%&'()* !+,-
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0 46
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./
 !"#$%&'( )*+,-./$
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./01
 !"#$%&'%()*+,-./
 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0
 !"#$%&'()*+#,%&
 !"#$

 !

 (2001)

 !"#$%&'()

 !"#$%&"'%&()
 !"#$%&'(
 !"#$!%&'(1997)
 !"
 !"#$%&'()*+,-.

 !
16(4)
319-328

 (1998)

 !"#
!"$%

 !"#$
 !"#$!%&'!()*+(1997)
 !"#$%&'()*+,-.

 !
16(2)
133-142

(2002)

 !"#$%&'()

 !"! #$%&'()*+,-
 (2001)#$%&'()*+,-
 !"#$%&'#!(
 !"
 !
187
121-125

 (2000)

 !"#$%&'()
 !"#$%
 !"#$%&
 !"#$%&'()*+,-.
 (1999)

 !"#$%&'()
 !"#$%&"'%&()*+
 !"#$%&
 !"#$!%&'(2000)
 !"
 !"#$%&'()*+,-.

 !
19(6)
437-445

Anderson, P. (1999). England publishes first tables of hospital performance. British

Medical Journal, 318(7200), 1715.

Bodenheimer, T. (1999). The American health care system--physicians and the changing medical marketplace. The New

England Journal of Medicine, 340(7),

584-588.

Epstein, A. (1995). Performance reports on quality--prototypes, problems, and prospects, The New England Journal of

Medicine, 333(1), 57-61.

Fogg, D. M. (1998). Health care report cards.

AORN Journal, 67(3), 669-672.

Harris, N. (1994). Report cards, Part 2: How hospitals measure up. Business Health,

12(8), 20-24.

Hass, J. (2001). Canada lags in development of report cards for hospitals. Canadian

Medical Association, 164(6), 853.

HealthGrades. (2002). How to choose a hospital. 2002. Retrieved October 17, 2002, from http://www.healthgrades. com/public.

Hibbard, J. H., & Jewett, J. J. (1997). Will quality report cards help consumers?

Health Affairs (Millwood), 16(3),

218-228.

Hochhauser, M. (1998). Why patients have little patience for report cards. Managed

Care, 7(3), 31-32, 34.

Isaacs, S. L.(1996). Consumer's information needs: results of a national survey.

Health Affairs, 15(5), 31-41.

Jaklevic, M. C. (1999). Hospital report-card model in peril. Modern Healthcare, 29 (3), 14-5.

Maxwell, C. I. (1998). Public disclosure of p e r f o r m a n c e i n f o r m a t i o n i n Pennsylvania: impact on hospital charges and the views of hospital Executives.

Joint Commission Journal of Quality Improvement, 24(9), 491-502.

Romano, P. S., Rainwater, J. A., & Antonius, D. (1999). Grading the graders: how

hos-pitals in California and New York per-ceive and interpret their report cards.

Medical Care, 37(3), 295-305.

Royal Women’s Hospital. (2000). Review of Existing Models of reporting to con-s u m e r con-s o n h e a l t h con-s e r v i c e q u a l i t y . Victoria:Turner ACT, NA: Author. Schauffler, H. H., & Mordavsky, J. K. (2001).

Consumer reports in health care: do they make a difference? Annual Review

Pub-lic Health, 22, 69-89.

Schultz, J., Thiede, Call, K., Feldman, R., & Christianson, J. (2001). Do employees use report cards to assess health care p r o v i d e r s y s t e m s ? H e a l t h S e r v i c e

Research, 36(3), 509-530.

Shepperd, S., & Charnock, D. (1999). Help patients access high quality health information. British Medical Journal,

319(7212), 764-766.

Slovensky, D. J., Fottler, M. D., & Houser, H. W. (1998). Developing an outcomes report card for hospitals: a case study and implementation guidelines. Journal

of Healthcare Management, 43(1),

Attitudes of Ambulatory Patients to

Hospital Report Cards

Chu-Chieh Chen

1,2

Ming-Chin Yang

2

Herng-Ching Lin

3

Abstract

Purposes: The aim of this study was to investigate the attitudes of ambulatory patients

towards hospital report cards. We asked for their views about the need for such report cards, the quality indicators they considered to be important and their preferences concern-ing the organization of such reports. This study also examined the relationship between the perceived need for such reports and the patients' characteristics.

Methods: The study subjects were ambulatory patients from seven hospitals. A

self-administered structured questionnaire was used to collect data.

Results: A total of 1200 questionnaires were distributed, of which 926 were returned,

yielding a response rate of 77.17%. Among the respondents, 55.5% expressed a perceived need for such hospital report cards. Responses showed that government is the organization for trusted to produce hospital report cards. The quality indicators patients considered to be significant were patient satisfaction, physicians’ specialization and experience and average waiting time. Patients who had higher monthly incomes, took medication for chronic illness or who had difficulties in obtaining information about hospitals or physi-cians were more likely to perceive a need for hospital report cards.

Conclusions: More than half of the ambulatory patients expressed a need for hospital

report cards. The authors recommend that health authorities start to produce hospital report cards to improve the quality of medical care and to protect patients' rights.

Key words: hospital report cards, ambulatory patients, quality indicators.

1

Instructor, Department of Health Care Management, National Taipei College of Nursing 2

Graduate Student, Graduate Institute of Health Care Organization Administration, College of Public Health, National Taiwan University

3

Assistant Professor, Graduate Institute of Health Care Administration, Taipei Medical University Received: Mar. 31, 2003 Revised: Sep. 10, 2003 Accepted: Oct. 30, 2003

Address Correspondence to: Herng-Ching Lin No. 250, Wu-Hsing Steet, Taipei 110, Taiwan, R.O.C. Tel: 02-23452506*13