OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the impact of public reporting of hospitals as negative outliers on percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) case-mix selection. BACKGROUND: Public reporting of risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality after PCI is intended to improve outcomes. However, public labeling of negative outliers based on risk-adjusted mortality rates may detrimentally affect hospitals' willingness to care for high-risk patients. METHODS: We used generalized estimating equations to examine expected in-hospital mortality rates for 116,227 PCI patients at all nonfederally funded Massachusetts hospitals performing PCI from 2003 to 2010. The main outcome measure was the change in predicted in-hospital mortality rates per hospital after outlier status identification. RESULTS: The prevalence-weighted mean expected mortality for all PCI cases during the study period was 1.38 ± 0.36% (5.3 ± 1.96% for all shock or ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients, 0.58 ± 0.19% for all not shock, not ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients). After public identification as a negative outlier institution, there was an 18% relative reduction (absolute 0.25% reduction) in predicted mortality among PCI patients at outlier institutions (95% confidence interval: -0.04 to -0.46%, p = 0.021) compared with nonoutlier institutions. Throughout the study period, there was an additional 37% relative (0.51% absolute) reduction in the predicted mortality risk among all PCI patients in Massachusetts attributable to secular changes since the onset of public reporting (95% confidence interval: -0.20 to -0.83, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The risk profile of PCI patients at outlier institutions was significantly lower after public identification compared with nonoutlier institutions, suggesting that risk-aversive behaviors among PCI operators at outlier institutions may be an unintended consequence of public reporting in Massachusetts.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the impact of public reporting of hospitals as negative outliers on percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) case-mix selection. BACKGROUND: Public reporting of risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality after PCI is intended to improve outcomes. However, public labeling of negative outliers based on risk-adjusted mortality rates may detrimentally affect hospitals' willingness to care for high-risk patients. METHODS: We used generalized estimating equations to examine expected in-hospital mortality rates for 116,227 PCI patients at all nonfederally funded Massachusetts hospitals performing PCI from 2003 to 2010. The main outcome measure was the change in predicted in-hospital mortality rates per hospital after outlier status identification. RESULTS: The prevalence-weighted mean expected mortality for all PCI cases during the study period was 1.38 ± 0.36% (5.3 ± 1.96% for all shock or ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctionpatients, 0.58 ± 0.19% for all not shock, not ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctionpatients). After public identification as a negative outlier institution, there was an 18% relative reduction (absolute 0.25% reduction) in predicted mortality among PCI patients at outlier institutions (95% confidence interval: -0.04 to -0.46%, p = 0.021) compared with nonoutlier institutions. Throughout the study period, there was an additional 37% relative (0.51% absolute) reduction in the predicted mortality risk among all PCI patients in Massachusetts attributable to secular changes since the onset of public reporting (95% confidence interval: -0.20 to -0.83, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The risk profile of PCI patients at outlier institutions was significantly lower after public identification compared with nonoutlier institutions, suggesting that risk-aversive behaviors among PCI operators at outlier institutions may be an unintended consequence of public reporting in Massachusetts.
Authors: Walter H Ettinger; Sharon M Hylka; Robert A Phillips; Lynn H Harrison; Jay A Cyr; Andrew J Sussman Journal: Am J Med Qual Date: 2008-02-01 Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: Paul S Chan; Manesh R Patel; Lloyd W Klein; Ronald J Krone; Gregory J Dehmer; Kevin Kennedy; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; W Douglas Weaver; Frederick A Masoudi; John S Rumsfeld; Ralph G Brindis; John A Spertus Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Frederic S Resnic; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Thomas C Piemonte; Samuel J Shubrooks; Katya Zelevinsky; Ann Lovett; Kalon K L Ho Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-02-22 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: J S Hochman; L A Sleeper; J G Webb; T A Sanborn; H D White; J D Talley; C E Buller; A K Jacobs; J N Slater; J Col; S M McKinlay; T H LeJemtel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-08-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stephen W Waldo; James M McCabe; Cashel O'Brien; Kevin F Kennedy; Karen E Joynt; Robert W Yeh Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2015-03-24 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Matthew W Sherwood; J Matthew Brennan; Kalon K Ho; Frederick A Masoudi; John C Messenger; W Douglas Weaver; David Dai; Eric D Peterson Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2014-12-10 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Lloyd W Klein; Kishore J Harjai; Fred Resnic; William S Weintraub; H Vernon Anderson; Robert W Yeh; Dmitriy N Feldman; Osvaldo S Gigliotti; Kenneth Rosenfeld; Peter Duffy Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2016-11-10 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: David H Lam; Lauren M Glassmoyer; Jordan B Strom; Roger B Davis; James M McCabe; Donald E Cutlip; Michael W Donnino; Michael N Cocchi; Duane S Pinto Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2017-08-02 Impact factor: 2.692