Dataset Information

Collaborative quality improvement vs public reporting for percutaneous coronary intervention: A comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention in New York vs Michigan.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Public reporting (PR) is a policy mechanism that may improve clinical outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, prior studies have shown that PR may have an adverse impact on patient selection. It is unclear whether alternatives to PR, such as collaborative quality improvement (CQI), may drive improvements in quality of care and outcomes for patients receiving PCI without the unintended consequences seen with PR. METHODS:Using National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry data from January 2011 through September 2012, we evaluated patients who underwent PCI in New York (NY), a state with PR (N = 51,983), to Michigan, a state with CQI (N = 53,528). We compared patient characteristics, the quality of care delivered, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS:Patients undergoing PCI in NY had a lower-risk profile, with a lower proportion of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, or cardiogenic shock, compared with Michigan. Quality of care was broadly similar in the 2 states; however, outcomes were better in NY. In a propensity-matched analysis, patients in NY were less likely to be referred for emergent, urgent, or salvage coronary artery bypass surgery (odds ratio [OR] 0.67, 95% CI 0.51-0.88, P < .0001) and to receive blood transfusion (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.61-0.82, P < .0001), and had lower in-hospital mortality (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63-0.83, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS:Public reporting of PCI data is associated with fewer high-risk patients undergoing PCI compared with CQI. However, in comparable samples of patients, PR is also associated with a lower risk of mortality and adverse events. The optimal quality improvement method may involve combining these 2 strategies to protect access to care while still driving improvements in patient outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Boyden TF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6948714 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Collaborative quality improvement vs public reporting for percutaneous coronary intervention: A comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention in New York vs Michigan.

Boyden Thomas F TF Joynt Karen E KE McCoy Lisa L Neely Megan L ML Cavender Matthew A MA Dixon Simon S Masoudi Frederick A FA Peterson Eric E Rao Sunil V SV Gurm Hitinder S HS

American heart journal 20150916 6

<h4>Introduction</h4>Public reporting (PR) is a policy mechanism that may improve clinical outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, prior studies have shown that PR may have an adverse impact on patient selection. It is unclear whether alternatives to PR, such as collaborative quality improvement (CQI), may drive improvements in quality of care and outcomes for patients receiving PCI without the unintended consequences seen with PR.<h4>Methods</h4>Using National Cardiovasc ...[more]

PMID: 26678645

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Public reporting of procedural outcomes has been associated with lower rates of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and worse outcomes after myocardial infarction. Contemporary data are limited on the influence of public reporting on interventional cardiologists' clinical decision making. Objective:To survey a contemporary cohort of interventional cardiologists in Massachusetts and New York about how public reporting of PCI outcomes influences clinical decision making. Design, Setting, and Participants:An online survey was developed with public reporting experts and administered electronically to eligible physicians in Massachusetts and New York who were identified by Doximity (an online physician networking site) and 2014 Medicare fee-for-service claims for PCI procedures. The personal and hospital characteristics of participants were ascertained via a comprehensive database from Doximity and the American Hospital Association annual surveys of US hospitals (2012 and 2013) and linked to survey responses. Associations between survey responses and characteristics of participants were evaluated in univariable and multivariable analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures:Reported rate of avoidance of performing PCIs in high-risk patients and of perception of pressure from colleagues to avoid performing PCIs. Results:Of the 456 physicians approached, 149 (32.7%) responded, including 67 of 129 (51.9%) in Massachusetts and 82 of 327 (25.1%) in New York. The mean (SD) age was 49 (9.2) years; 141 of 149 participants (94.6%) were men. Most participants reported practicing at medium to large, nonprofit hospitals with high-volume cardiac catheterization laboratories and cardiothoracic surgery capabilities. In 2014, participants had higher annual PCI volumes among Medicare patients than nonparticipants did (median, 31; interquartile range [IQR], 13-47 vs median, 17; IQR, 0-41; P < .001). Among participants, 65% reported avoiding PCIs on at least 2 occasions becase of concern that a bad outcome would negatively impact their publicly reported outcomes; 59% reported sometimes or often being pressured by colleagues to avoid performing PCIs because of a concern about the patient's risk of death. After multivariable adjustment, more years of experience practicing interventional cardiology was associated with lower odds of PCI avoidance. The state of practice was not associated with survey responses. Conclusions and Relevance:Current PCI public reporting programs can foster risk-averse clinical practice patterns, which do not vary significantly between interventional cardiologists in New York and Massachusetts. Coordinated efforts by policy makers, health systems leadership, and the interventional cardiology community are needed to mitigate these unintended consequences.

Project description:ContextPublic reporting of patient outcomes is an important tool to improve quality of care, but some observers worry that such efforts will lead clinicians to avoid high-risk patients.ObjectiveTo determine whether public reporting for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with lower rates of PCI for patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) or with higher mortality rates in this population.Design, setting, and patientsRetrospective observational study conducted using data from fee-for-service Medicare patients (49,660 from reporting states and 48,142 from nonreporting states) admitted with acute MI to US acute care hospitals between 2002 and 2010. Logistic regression was used to compare PCI and mortality rates between reporting states (New York, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania) and regional nonreporting states (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maryland, and Delaware). Changes in PCI rates over time in Massachusetts compared with nonreporting states were also examined.Main outcome measuresRisk-adjusted PCI and mortality rates.ResultsIn 2010, patients with acute MI were less likely to receive PCI in public reporting states than in nonreporting states (unadjusted rates, 37.7% vs 42.7%, respectively; risk-adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.71-0.93]; P = .003). Differences were greatest among the 6708 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (61.8% vs 68.0%; OR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.59-0.89]; P = .002) and the 2194 patients with cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest (41.5% vs 46.7%; OR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.64-0.98]; P = .03). There were no differences in overall mortality among patients with acute MI in reporting vs nonreporting states. In Massachusetts, odds of PCI for acute MI were comparable with odds in nonreporting states prior to public reporting (40.6% vs 41.8%; OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.71-1.41]). However, after implementation of public reporting, odds of undergoing PCI in Massachusetts decreased compared with nonreporting states (41.1% vs 45.6%; OR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.47-1.38]; P = .03 for difference in differences). Differences were most pronounced for the 6081 patients with cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest (prereporting: 44.2% vs 36.6%; OR, 1.40 [95% CI, 0.85-2.32]; postreporting: 43.9% vs 44.8%; OR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.38-2.22]; P = .03 for difference in differences).ConclusionsAmong Medicare beneficiaries with acute MI, the use of PCI was lower for patients treated in 3 states with public reporting of PCI outcomes compared with patients treated in 7 regional control states without public reporting. However, there was no difference in overall acute MI mortality between states with and without public reporting.

Dataset Information

Collaborative quality improvement vs public reporting for percutaneous coronary intervention: A comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention in New York vs Michigan.

Publications

Collaborative quality improvement vs public reporting for percutaneous coronary intervention: A comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention in New York vs Michigan.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets