Abstract
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. To characterize the quality improvement content of cardiac catheterization peer reviews. 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. Percentage of peer reviews reporting substandard care and opportunities for quality improvement. 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%). 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.
Highlights
Peer review is recommended for all cardiac catheterization programs as a mechanism to promote clinical proficiency and identify opportunities for quality improvement (QI).[1]
A total of 196 643 diagnostic coronary angiograms and 62 576 percutaneous coronary interventions were performed in the Department of Veterans Affairs
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
Summary
Peer review is recommended for all cardiac catheterization programs as a mechanism to promote clinical proficiency and identify opportunities for quality improvement (QI).[1] Review of cases with poor outcomes or unexpected complications (ie, morbidity and mortality conference) is a common form of peer review,[2,3] but whether this activity yields content that may guide performance. Quality Improvement Content of Cardiac Catheterization Peer Reviews in the VA CART Program improvement has not been described, to our knowledge. We sought to characterize the QI content of these peer reviews via a retrospective analysis of program records
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
