Aims: The public reporting of healthcare outcomes has a number of potential benefits; however, unintended consequences may limit its effectiveness as a quality improvement process. We aimed to assess whether the introduction of individual operator specific outcome reporting after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the UK was associated with a change in patient risk factor profiles, procedural management, or 30-day mortality outcomes in a large cohort of consecutive patients.
Methods and results: This was an observational cohort study of 123 780 consecutive PCI procedures from the Pan-London (UK) PCI registry, from January 2005 to December 2015. Outcomes were compared pre- (2005-11) and post- (2011-15) public reporting including the use of an interrupted time series analysis. Patients treated after public reporting was introduced were older and had more complex medical problems. Despite this, reported in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events rates were significantly lower after the introduction of public reporting (2.3 vs. 2.7%, P < 0.0001). Interrupted time series analysis demonstrated evidence of a reduction in 30-day mortality rates after the introduction of public reporting, which was over and above the existing trend in mortality before the introduction of public outcome reporting (35% decrease relative risk 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.55-0.77; P < 0.0001).
Conclusion: The introduction of public reporting has been associated with an improvement in outcomes after PCI in this data set, without evidence of risk-averse behaviour. However, the lower reported complication rates might suggest a change in operator behaviour and decision-making confirming the need for continued surveillance of the impact of public reporting on outcomes and operator behaviour.
Keywords: Outcomes; Percutaneous coronary intervention.
Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.