[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.211.82.105. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Commentary
June 15, 2011

Surveillance Bias in Outcomes Reporting

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Departments of Surgery and Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland (Drs Haut and Pronovost); Graduate Training Program in Clinical Investigation (Dr Haut) and Department of Health Policy Management (Dr Pronovost), Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

JAMA. 2011;305(23):2462-2463. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.822

The prevalence and extent of public reporting of adverse medical outcomes are increasing. Many private, public, and government Web sites rank hospitals and report scores on selected quality measures. Health care consumers, including referring physicians, individual patients, and insurers, can use these data to inform decision making by selecting hospitals with better outcomes. However, the science of outcome reporting is young and lags behind the desires of the public in this information age. Reporting quality measures may have benefits but also may pose risks from unintended consequences.1

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×