Patient and Physician Perspectives on Public Reporting of Mortality Ratings for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in New York State

Contemporary Risk Models for In-Hospital and 30-Day Mortality After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Risk models for mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are underutilized in clinical practice though they may be useful during informed consent, risk mitigation planning, and risk adjustment of hospital and operator outcomes. This review analyzed contemporary risk models for in-hospital and 30-day mortality after PCI.

RECENT FINDINGS

We reviewed eight contemporary risk models. Age, sex, hemodynamic status, acute coronary syndrome type, heart failure, and kidney disease were consistently found to be independent risk factors for mortality. These models provided good discrimination (C-statistic 0.85-0.95) for both pre-catheterization and comprehensive risk models that included anatomic variables. There are several excellent models for PCI mortality risk prediction. Choice of the model will depend on the use case and population, though the CathPCI model should be the default for in-hospital mortality risk prediction in the United States. Future interventions should focus on the integration of risk prediction into clinical care.

A cross-sectional survey of patient perceptions of the National Neurosurgical Audit Programme (NNAP)

BACKGROUND

The National Neurosurgical Audit Programme (NNAP) publishes mortality outcomes of consultants and neurosurgical units across the United Kingdom. It is unclear how useful outcomes data is for patients and whether it influences their decision-making process. Our aim was to identify patients' perceptions and understanding of the NNAP data and its influences.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-centre study was conducted in the outpatient neurosurgery clinics at a regional neurosurgical centre. All adult (age ≥ 18) neurosurgical patients, with capacity, were invited to take part. Native and non-native English speakers were eligible. Statistical analyses were performed on SPSS v28 (IBM). Ethical approval was obtained.

RESULTS

A total of 84 responses were received (54.7% females). Over half (51.0%) of respondents felt that they understood a consultant's mortality outcomes. Educational level determines respondents' understanding (χ2(8) = 16.870; p = .031). Most respondents were unaware of the NNAP (89.0%). Only a third of respondents (35.1%) understood the funnel plot used to illustrate mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients were unaware of the NNAP and most did not understand the data on the website. Understanding of mortality data seemed to be related to respondents' educational level which would be important to keep in mind when planning how to depict mortality data.

The Impact of Value-Based Payment Models for Networks of Care and Transmural Care: A Systematic Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

Value-based healthcare has potential for cost control and quality improvement. To assess this, we review the evidence on the impact of value-based payment (VBP) models in the context of networks of care (NOC) and transmural care.

METHODS

We used the PRISMA guidelines for this systematic literature review. We searched eight databases in July 2021. Subsequently, we conducted title and abstract and full-text screenings, and extracted information in an extraction matrix. Based on this, we assessed the evidence on the effects of VBP models on clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes/experiences, organization-related outcomes/experiences, and costs. Additionally, we reviewed the facilitating and inhibiting factors per VBP model.

FINDINGS

Among articles studying shared savings and pay-for-performance models, most outline positive effects on both clinical and cost outcomes, such as preventable hospitalizations and total expenditures, respectively. Most studies show no change in patient satisfaction and access to care when adopting VBP models. Providers' opinions towards the models are frequently negative. Transparency and communication among involved stakeholders are found to be key facilitating factors, transversal to all models. Additionally, a lack of trust is an inhibitor found in all VBP models, together with inadequate targets and insufficient incentives. In bundled payment and pay-for-performance models, complexity in the structure of the program and lack of experience in implementing required mechanisms are key inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall positive effect on clinical and cost outcomes validates the success of VBP models. The mostly negative effects on organization-reported outcomes/experiences are corroborated by findings regarding providers' lack of awareness, trust, and engagement with the model. This may be justified by their exclusion from the design of the models, decreasing their sense of ownership and, therefore, motivation. Incentives, targets, benchmarks, and quality measures, if adequately designed, seem to be important facilitators, and if lacking or inadequate, they are key inhibitors. These are prominent facilitators and inhibitors for P4P and shared savings models but not as prominent for bundled payments. The complexity of the scheme and lack of experience are prominent inhibitors in all VBP models, since all require changes in several areas, such as behavioral, process, and infrastructure.

Quality Improvement and Public Reporting in STEMI Care

Mortality rates for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remain high despite development of novel drugs and interventions over the past several decades. There is significant variability between hospitals in use of evidence-based treatments, and substantial opportunities exist to optimize care pathways and reduce disparities in care delivery. Quality improvement interventions implemented at local, regional, and national levels have improved care processes and patient outcomes. This article reviews evidence for quality improvement interventions along the spectrum of STEMI care, describes existing systems for quality measurement, and examines local and national policy interventions, with special attention to public reporting programs.

Performance of Hospitals When Assessing Disease-Based Mortality Compared With Procedural Mortality for Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

Importance

Quality of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is commonly assessed by risk-adjusted mortality. However, this metric may result in procedural risk aversion, especially for high-risk patients.

Objective

To determine correlation and reclassification between hospital-level disease-specific mortality and PCI procedural mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This hospital-level observational cross-sectional multicenter analysis included hospitals participating in the Chest Pain-MI Registry, which enrolled consecutive adult patients admitted with a diagnosis of type I non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and hospitals in the CathPCI Registry, which enrolled consecutive adult patients treated with PCI with an indication of NSTEMI or STEMI, between April 1, 2011, and December 31, 2017.

Exposures

Inclusion into the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Chest Pain-MI and CathPCI registries.

Main Outcomes and Measures

For each hospital in each registry, a disease-based excess mortality ratio (EMR-D) for AMI was calculated, which represents a risk-adjusted observed to expected rate of mortality for AMI as a disease using the Chest Pain-MI Registry, and a procedure-based excess mortality ratio (EMR-P) for PCI was calculated using the CathPCI Registry.

Results

A subset of 625 sites participated in both registries, with a final count of 776 890 patients from the Chest Pain-MI Registry (509 576 men [65.6%]; 620 981 white [80.0%]; and median age, 64 years [interquartile range, 55-74 years]) and 853 386 patients from the CathPCI Registry (582 701 men [68.3%]; 691 236 white [81.0%]; and median age, 63 years [interquartile range, 54-73 years]). Among the 625 linked hospitals, the Spearman rank correlation coefficient between EMR-D and EMR-P produced a ρ of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.47-0.58), suggesting moderate correlation. Among the highest-performing tertile for disease-based risk-adjusted mortality, 90 of 208 sites (43.3%) were classified into a lower category for procedural risk-adjusted mortality. Among the lowest-performing tertile for disease-based risk-adjusted mortality, 92 of 208 sites (44.2%) were classified into a higher category for procedural risk-adjusted mortality. Bland-Altman plots for the overall linked cohort demonstrate a mean difference between EMR-P and EMR-D of 0.49% (95% CI, -1.61% to 2.58%; P < .001), with procedural mortality higher than disease-based mortality. However, among patients with AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest, the mean difference between EMR-P and EMR-D was -0.64% (95% CI, -4.41% to 3.12%; P < .001), with procedural mortality lower than disease-based mortality.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study suggests that, for hospitals treating patients with AMI, there is only a moderate correlation between procedural outcomes and disease-based outcomes. Nearly half of hospitals in the highest tertile of performance for PCI performance were reclassified into a lower performance tertile when judged by disease-based metrics. Higher rates of mortality were observed when using disease-based metrics compared with procedural metrics when assessing patients with cardiogenic shock and/or cardiac arrest, signifying what appears to be potential risk avoidance among this highest-risk subset of patients.

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

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 (P<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 (P<0.001). Despite these sentiments, the majority of operators did not feel pressured to avoid (82% and 75%; P=0.383) or perform (72% and 63%; P=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.

Association Between Current and Future Annual Hospital Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Mortality Rates

Importance

Multiple states publicly report a hospital's risk-adjusted mortality rate for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as a quality measure. However, whether reported annual PCI mortality is associated with a hospital's future performance is unclear.

Objective

To evaluate the association between reported risk-adjusted hospital PCI-related mortality and a hospital's future PCI-related mortality.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This study used data from the New York Percutaneous Intervention Reporting System from January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2016, to assess hospitals that perform PCI.

Exposures

Public-reported, risk-adjusted, 30-day mortality after PCI.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary analysis evaluated the association between a hospital's reported risk-adjusted PCI-related mortality and future PCI-related mortality. The correlation between a hospital's observed to expected (O/E) PCI-related mortality rates each year and future O/E mortality ratios was assessed. Multivariable linear regression was used to examine the association between index year O/E mortality and O/E mortality in subsequent years while adjusting for PCI volume and patient severity.

Results

This study included 67 New York hospitals and 960 hospital-years. Hospitals with low PCI-related mortality (O/E mortality ratio, ≤1) and high mortality (O/E mortality ratio, >1) had inverse associations between their O/E mortality ratio in the index year and the subsequent change in the ratio (hospitals with low mortality, r = -0.45; hospitals with high mortality, r = -0.60). Little of the variation in risk-adjusted mortality was explained by prior performance. An increase in the O/E mortality ratio from 1.0 to 2.0 in the index year was associated with a higher O/E mortality ratio of only 0.15 (95% CI, 0.02-0.27) in the following year.

Conclusions and Relevance

At hospitals with high or low PCI-related mortality rates, the rates largely regressed to the mean the following year. A hospital's risk-adjusted mortality rate was poorly associated with its future mortality. The annual hospital PCI-related mortality may not be a reliable factor associated with hospital quality to consider in a practice change or when helping patients select high-quality hospitals.

Physician Beliefs About Online Reporting of Quality and Experience Data

IMPORTANCE

Physician attitudes about websites that publicly report health care quality and experience data have not been recently described.

OBJECTIVES

To examine physician attitudes about the accuracy of websites that report information about quality of care and patient experience and to describe physician beliefs about the helpfulness of these data for patients choosing a physician.

DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASURES

The Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDOH) and a multi-stakeholder group developed and piloted two questions that were added to RIDOH's biennial physician survey of all 4197 practicing physicians in Rhode Island: (1) "How accurate of a picture do you feel that the following types of online resources give about the quality of care that physicians provide?" (with choices) and (2) "Which types of physician-specific information (i.e., not about the practice overall) would be helpful to include in online resources for patients to help them choose a new physician? (Select all that apply)." Responses were stratified by primary care vs. subspecialty clinicians. Summary statistics and chi-squared tests were used to analyze the results.

RESULTS

Among 1792 respondents (response rate 43%), 45% were unaware of RIDOH's site and 54% were unaware of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)' quality reporting sites. Only 2% felt that Medicare sites were "very accurate" in depicting physician quality. Most physicians supported public reporting of general information about physicians (e.g., board certification), but just over one-third of physicians felt that performance-based quality measures are "helpful" (and a similar percentage reported that patient reviews felt are "helpful") for patients choosing a physician.

CONCLUSIONS

Physician-respondents were either uninformed or skeptical about public reporting websites. In contrast to prior reports that a majority of patients value some forms of publicly reported data, most physicians do not consider quality metrics and patient-generated reviews helpful for patients who are choosing a physician.

Public Reporting of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Outcomes: Moving Beyond the Status Quo

Importance

More than 20 years have passed since public reporting of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes first began in New York State, but reporting remains a polarizing issue.

Observations

Advocates of public reporting point to the strong incentive that public disclosure of outcomes data provides for institutions and clinicians to improve clinical care and to the importance of enabling patients to make informed choices about their care. Critics highlight the methodological challenges that impede fair and accurate assessments of care quality as well as reporting's unintended consequences. Public reporting of PCI outcomes has only been implemented in 5 states, but reporting efforts for multiple conditions and procedures are now proliferating nationally, propelled by the notion that transparency improves the quality of health care and fosters trust in health care institutions. Careful evaluation of the evidence to date for PCI in particular, however, suggests that enthusiasm for such efforts should be tempered.

Conclusions and Relevance

Public reporting has not achieved its primary objectives. Policy makers should consider variations of reporting that might strengthen care quality, empower patients, and mitigate undesirable repercussions.

A Survey of Interventional Cardiologists' Attitudes and Beliefs About Public Reporting of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

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.

Effects of Public Reporting Legislation of Nurse Staffing: A Trend Analysis

Public reporting is a tactic that hospitals and other health care facilities use to provide data such as outcomes to clinicians, patients, and payers. Although inadequate registered nurse (RN) staffing has been linked to poor patient outcomes, only eight states in the United States publicly report staffing ratios-five mandated by legislation and the other three electively. We examine nurse staffing trends after the New Jersey (NJ) legislature and governor enacted P.L.1971, c.136 (C.26:2 H-13) on January 24, 2005, mandating that all health care facilities compile, post, and report staffing information. We conduct a secondary analysis of reported data from the State of NJ Department of Health on 73 hospitals in 2008 to 2009 and 72 hospitals in 2010 to 2015. The first aim was to determine if NJ hospitals complied with legislation, and the second was to identify staffing trends postlegislation. On the reports, staffing was operationalized as the number of patients per RN per quarters. We obtained 30 quarterly reports for 2008 through 2015 and cross-checked these reports for data accuracy on the NJ Department of Health website. From these data, we created a longitudinal data set of 13 inpatient units for each hospital (14,158 observations) and merged these data with American Hospital Association Annual Survey data. The number of patients per RN decreased for 10 specialties, and the American Hospital Association data demonstrate a similar trend. Although the number of patients does not account for patient acuity, the decrease in the patients per RN over 7 years indicated the importance of public reporting in improving patient safety.

Lifting the veil on stroke outcomes: revisiting stroke centers' transparency through public reporting of metrics

Public reporting of healthcare metrics provides transparency that allows patients and emergency medical providers to make informed decisions about where patients should receive care. Most previous reports about public reporting of health metrics have demonstrated significant improvements in outcome metrics after implementation. However, no mechanism exists, voluntary or otherwise, for the public reporting of outcomes of stroke care. We review the components of public reporting of health outcomes data and its limited history in stroke outcomes. We summarize the literature on public reporting in cardiovascular interventions, particularly percutaneous coronary interventions, as a close corollary to mechanical neurothrombectomy. The benefits, limitations, and controversies associated with reporting of cardiovascular outcomes are reviewed with a focus on the development of risk-avoidant behaviors. This article serves as a primer for discussion of the potential benefits, limitations, and unintended consequences of public reporting of stroke data.