Perceptions of Public and Nonpublic Reporting of Interventional Cardiology Outcomes and Its Impact on Practice: Insights From the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program.

Morrison J, Plomondon ME, O'Donnell CI, Giri J, Doll JA, Valle JA, Waldo SW. Perceptions of Public and Nonpublic Reporting of Interventional Cardiology Outcomes and Its Impact on Practice: Insights From the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2019 Nov 19; 8(22):e014212.

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:

Background Physicians have expressed significant mistrust with public reporting of interventional cardiology outcomes. Similar data are not available on alternative reporting structures, including nonpublic quality improvement programs with internally distributed measures of interventional quality. We thus sought to evaluate the perceptions of public and nonpublic reporting of interventional cardiology outcomes and its impact on clinical practice. Methods and Results A standardized survey was distributed to 218 interventional cardiologists in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, with responses received from 62 (28%). The majority of respondents (90%) expressed some or a great deal of trust in the analytic methods used to generate reports in a nonpublic quality improvement system within Veterans Affairs, while a minority (35%) expressed similar trust in the analytic methods in a public reporting system that operates outside Veterans Affairs ( < 0.001). Similarly, a minority of respondents (44%) felt that in-hospital and 30-day mortality accurately reflected interventional quality in a nonpublic quality improvement system, though a smaller proportion of survey participants (15%) felt that the same outcome reflected procedural quality in public reporting systems ( < 0.001). Despite these sentiments, the majority of operators did not feel pressured to avoid (82% and 75%; = 0.383) or perform (72% and 63%; = 0.096) high-risk procedures within or outside Veterans Affairs. Conclusions Interventional cardiologists express greater trust in analytic methods and clinical outcomes reported in a nonpublic quality improvement program than external public reporting environments. The majority of physicians did not feel pressured to avoid or perform high-risk procedures, which may improve access to interventional care among high-risk patients.