Characteristics of the Quality Improvement Content of Cardiac Catheterization Peer Reviews in the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program.

Doll JA, Plomondon ME, Waldo SW. Characteristics of the Quality Improvement Content of Cardiac Catheterization Peer Reviews in the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program. JAMA Network Open. 2019 Aug 2; 2(8):e198393.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• CDA 17-162 – Peer learning to promote quality and appropriate use of percutaneous coronary intervention

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

Importance: Peer review is recommended for quality assessment in all cardiac catheterization programs, but, to our knowledge, the content of peer reviews and the potential for quality improvement has not been described. Objective: To characterize the quality improvement content of cardiac catheterization peer reviews. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study used retrospective case review of diagnostic angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention procedures to characterize the major adverse event review process of the US Department of Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking (CART) program from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2016. Data review and analysis took place from November 2017 to August 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Percentage of peer reviews reporting substandard care and opportunities for quality improvement. Results: A total of 196?643 diagnostic coronary angiograms and 62?576 percutaneous coronary interventions were performed in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Of these, 168 (0.1%) were triggered for review because of a self-reported major adverse event during the procedure. Of 152 cases with complete peer review data, care was adjudicated as not meeting the standard of care in 25 cases (16.4%). Concerns about operator judgment were identified in 46 cases (30.3%), about case selection in 26 (17.1%), about trainee supervision in 21 (13.8%), and about technical performance in 46 (30.3%). Reviewers made recommendations to improve operator performance in 63 cases (41.4%) and catheterization laboratory or hospital processes in 58 (38.2%). Conclusions and Relevance: While substandard care is infrequently identified in peer review of catheterization laboratory complications in the Department of Veterans Affairs, the process often generates recommendations for quality improvement. Peer review programs should focus on identifying quality improvement opportunities and providing meaningful feedback to operators.