A recent publication by Prabhu et al. in the American Heart Journal¹ reviewed the qualitative feelings of 20 interventional cardiologists regarding the value of outcome measures and other opportunities to improve performance through peer review and case conferences. Although the interview group was small, all 20 interventionalists performed at least 60 percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures per year and were from a variety of regional and practice settings including private practice, academics, and Department of Veterans Affairs settings. Results suggested that standardized registry outcome data were not often effective in prompting changes in practice alone but could be enhanced by leadership and peer discussions. Generally, case conferences with non-threatening peer comments were felt to be most helpful. Unsurprisingly, issues of practice competition and age/experience hierarchy were potential barriers to peer interaction.

References

1. Prabhu KM, Don C, Sayre GG, et al. Interventional cardiologists' perceptions of percutaneous coronary intervention quality measurement and feedback. Am Heart J 2021;Feb 7:[Epub ahead of print].

Clinical Topics: Cardiovascular Care Team, Invasive Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention

Keywords: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, Leadership, Veterans, Laboratories, Peer Review, Registries, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Private Practice, Diagnosis-Related Groups, Catheterization, Reference Standards

< Back to Listings