Guidelines for internal peer review in the cardiac catheterization laboratory
Corresponding Author
Frederick A. Heupler Jr. MD
Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OhioSearch for more papers by this authorCharles E. Chambers MD
Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania
Search for more papers by this authorDebra A. Angello MD
Winchester Cardiology and Internal Medicine, Winchester, Virginia
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Frederick A. Heupler Jr. MD
Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OhioSearch for more papers by this authorCharles E. Chambers MD
Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania
Search for more papers by this authorDebra A. Angello MD
Winchester Cardiology and Internal Medicine, Winchester, Virginia
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
The Laboratory Performance Standards Committee of the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions has proposed guidelines for establishing an internal peer review program in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. The first step is to establish a committee and a data base. This data base should include quality indicators that reflect: physician qualifications, outcomes of procedures, and processes of care. The outcomes must be risk-adjusted to account for the variable severity of illness. Data should be collected by catheterization laboratory personnel and entered into a laboratory-specific computerized data base. These data must be analyzed and organized into profiles that reflect the quality of care. Based on this information, the Committee would institute the following interventions to improve physician performance: education, clinical practice standardization, feedback and benchmarking, professional interaction, incentives, decision-support systems, and administrative interventions. The legal aspects of peer review are reviewed briefly. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 40:21–32, 1997. © 1997 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
References
- 1 Berwick DM: Peer review and quality management: Are they compatible? QRB 16: 246–251, 1990.
- 2 Hershey N, Bontempo LC: Assessing peer review in the quest for improved medical services: Part II. Qual Assur Util Rev 5: 7–11, 1990.
- 3 Blumberg MS: Risk adjusting health care outcomes: A methodologic review. Med Care Rev 43: 351–393, 1986.
- 4 Heupler FA, Al-Hani AJ, Dear WE,and Members of the Laboratory Performance Standards Committee of the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions: Guidelines for continuous quality improvement in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 30: 191–200, 1993.
- 5 Sharp JR: Peer review: Determining what's best for patients by professional self-assessment. Milit Med 157: 311–314, 1992.
- 6 Berwick DM: Eleven worthy aims for clinical leadership of health system reform. JAMA 272: 797–802, 1994.
- 7 Califf RM, Jollis JG, Peterson ED: Operator-specific outcomes. A call to professional responsibility. Circulation 93: 403–406, 1996.
- 8 Schoenbaum SC, Murrey KO: Impact of profiles on medical practice. In: “ Physician Payment Review Commission Conference of Profiling.” Publication 92-2. Washington, DC: Physician Payment Review Commission, 1992, pp 72–102.
- 9 Epstein A: Performance reports on quality–Prototypes, problems, and prospects. N Engl J Med 333: 57–61, 1995.
- 10 Berwick DM: Measuring health care quality. Pediatr Rev 10: 11–16, 1988.
- 11 Carey RG, Lloyd RC: Data collection. In RG Carey, RC Lloyd (eds): “ Measuring Quality Improvement in Healthcare.” New York: Quality Resources, 1995, pp 27–52.
- 12 Davis DA, Thomson MA, Oxman AD, Haynes RB: Changing physician performance. A systematic review of the effect of continuing medical education strategies. JAMA 274: 700–705, 1995.
- 13 James BC, Horn SD, Stephenson RA: Management by fact: What is CPI and how is it used? In SD Horn, DSP Hopkins (eds): “ Clinical Practice Improvement: A New Technology for Developing Cost–Effective Quality Health Care.” New York: Faulkner & Gray, 1994, pp 39–54.
- 14 Berwick DM: The society for medical decision making: The right place at the right time. Med Decis Making 8: 77–80, 1988.
- 15 Topol EJ, Block PC, Holmes DR, Klinke WP, Brinker JA: Readiness for the scorecard era in cardiovascular medicine. Implications for cost–effectiveness. Am J Cardiol 75: 1170–1173, 1995.
- 16 Goldman RL: The reliability of peer assessments of quality of care. JAMA 267: 958–960, 1992.
- 17 Anonymous: Characteristics of clinical indicators. QRB 15: 330–339, 1989.
- 18 Berwick DM: Toward an applied technology for quality measurement in health care. Med Decis Making 8: 253–258, 1988.
- 19 Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations: “ Primer on Indicator Development and Application.” Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois: 1990, pp 7–21.
- 20 Donabedian A: Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc 44: 166–203, 1966.
- 21 Donabedian A: Quality assessment and assurance: Unity of purpose, diversity of means. Inquiry 25: 173–192, 1988.
- 22 Lindsay J, Pinnow EE, Popma JJ, Pichard AD: Obstacles to outcomes analysis in percutaneous transluminal coronary revascularization. Am J Cardiol 76: 168–172, 1995.
- 23 Lasker RD, Shapiro DW, Tucker AM: Realizing the potential of profiling. In: “ Physician Payment Review Commission Conference on Profiling.” Publication 92–2. Washington, DC: Physician Payment Review Commission, 1992, pp 2–18.
- 24 Jencks SF, Daley J, Draper D, Thomas N, Lenhart G, Walker J: Interpreting hospital mortality data. The role of clinical risk adjustment. JAMA 260: 3611–3616, 1988.
- 25 Ellis SG, Omoigui N, Bittl JA, Lincoff M, Wolfe MW, Howell G, Topol EJ: Analysis and comparison of operator specific outcomes in interventional cardiology. From a multicenter database of 4860 quality-controlled procedures. Circulation 93: 431–439, 1996.
- 26 Crede WB, Hierholzer WJ: Surveillance for quality assessment: III. The critical assessment of quality indicators. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 11: 197–201, 1990.
- 27 Green J: Problems in the use of outcome statistics to compare health care providers. Brooklyn Law Rev 58: 55–73, 1992.
- 28 Hammermeister KE, Johnson R, Marshall G, Grover FL: Continuous assessment and improvement in quality of care. A model from the Department of Veterans Affairs Cardiac Surgery. Ann Surg 219: 281–290, 1994.
- 29 Kritchevsky SB, Simmons BP: Continuous quality improvement. Concepts and applications for physician care. JAMA 266: 1817–1823, 1991.
- 30 Hayward RA, McMahon LF Jr, Bernard AM: Evaluating the care of general medicine inpatients: How good is implicit review? Ann Intern Med 118: 550–556, 1993.
- 31 James BC, Eddy DM: CPI and practice guidelines. In SD Horn, DSP Hopkins (eds): “ Clinical Improvement: A New Technology for Developing Cost-Effective Quality Health Care.” New York: Faulkner & Gray, 1994, pp 127–140.
- 32 Naylor CD: Grey zones of clinical practice: Some limits to evidence–based medicine. Lancet 345: 840–842, 1995.
- 33 Morris AH, James BC: CPI and computerized protocols: An example. In SD Horn, DSP Hopkins (eds): “ Clinical Practice Improvement: A New Technology for Developing Cost–Effective Quality Health Care.” New York: Faulkner & Gray, 1994, pp 141–149.
- 34 Chassin MR: Practice guidelines: Best hope for quality improvement in the 1990s. J Occup Med 32: 1199–206, 1990.
- 35 Greenfield S, Aronow GU, Elashoff RM, Watanabe D: Flaws in mortality data. The hazards of ignoring comorbid disease. JAMA 260: 2253–2255, 1988.
- 36 Iezzoni LI: Dimensions of risk. In LI Iezzoni (ed): “ Risk Adjustment for Measuring Health Care Outcomes.” Ann Arbor: Health Administration Press, 1994, pp 29–118.
- 37 Park RE, Brook RH, Kosecoff J, Keesey J, Rubenstein L, Keeler E, Kahn KL, Rogers WH, Chassin MR: Explaining variations in hospital death rates. Randomness, severity of illness, quality of care. JAMA 264: 484–490, 1990.
- 38 Horn SD, Hopkins DSP: Introduction. In SD Horn, DSP Hopkins (eds): “ Clinical Practice Improvement: A New Technology for Developing Cost-Effective Quality Health Care.” New York: Faulkner & Gray, 1994, pp 1–5.
- 39 Daley J: Criteria by which to evaluate risk-adjusted outcomes programs in cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 58: 1827–1835, 1994.
- 40 Kimmel SE, Berlin JA, Strom BL, Laskey WK: Development and validation of a simplified predictive index for major complications in contemporary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty practice. The Registry Committee of the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol 26: 931–938, 1995.
- 41 Laskey W, Boyle J, Johnson LW: Multivariable model for prediction of risk of significant complication during diagnostic cardiac catheterization. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 30: 185–190, 1993.
- 42 Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR: A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40: 373–383, 1987.
- 43 Pryor DB, Califf RM, Harrell FE, Hlatkey MA, Lee KL, Mark DB, Rosati RA: Clinical data bases. Accomplishments and unrealized potential. Med Care 23: 623–647, 1985.
- 44 Hannan EL, Kilburn H Jr, Lindsey ML, Lewis R: Clinical versus administrative data bases for CABG surgery. Does it matter? Med Care 30: 892–907, 1992.
- 45 Jollis JG, Ancukiewicz M, DeLong ER, Pryor DB, Muhlbaier LH, Mark DB: Discordance of databases designed for claims payment versus clinical information systems. Implications for outcomes research. Ann Intern Med 119: 844–850, 1993.
- 46 Blumberg MS: Biased estimates of expected acute myocardial infarction mortality using Medis Groups admission severity groups. JAMA 265: 2965–2970, 1991.
- 47 Iezzoni LI, Daley J: A description and clinical assessment of the Computerized Severity Index. QRB 18: 44–52, 1992.
- 48 Brand DA, Newcomer LN, Freiburger A, Tian H: Cardiologists' practices compared with practice guidelines: Use of beta–blockade after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 26: 1432–1436, 1995.
- 49 DiSalvo TG, Paul SD, Lloyd–Jones D, Smith AJC, Villareal-Levy G, Bamezai V, Hussain SY, Eagle KA, O'Gara PT: Care of acute myocardial infarction by noninvasive and invasive cardiologists: Procedure use, cost and outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol 27: 262–269, 1996.
- 50 Epstein AM: Use of diagnostic tests and therapeutic procedures in a changing health care environment. JAMA 275: 1197–1198, 1996.
- 51 Guadagnoli E, Hauptman PJ, Ayanian JZ, Pashos CL, McNeil BJ, Cleary PD: Variation in the use of cardiac procedures after acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 333: 573–578, 1995.
- 52
Malone ML,
Bajwa TK,
Battiola RJ,
Fortsas M,
Aman S,
Solomon DJ,
Goodwin JS:
Variation among cardiologists in the utilization of right heart catheterization at time of coronary angiography.
Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn
37: 125–130,
1996.
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0304(199602)37:2<125::AID-CCD4>3.0.CO;2-F CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
- 53 Pilote L, Califf RM, Sapp S, Miller DP, Mark DB, Weaver WD, Gore JM, Armstrong PW, Ohman EM, Topol EJ: Regional variation across the United States in the management of acute myocardial infarction. GUSTO–1 Investigators: Global utilization of streptokinase and tissue plasminogen activator for occluded coronary arteries. N Engl J Med 333: 565–572, 1995.
- 54 Ishikawa K: “ Guide to Quality Control,” 2nd ed. Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organization, 1982, pp 73–98.
- 55 Berwick DM: Controlling variation in health care: A consultation from Walter Shewhart. Med Care 29: 1212–1225, 1991.
- 56 Greco PJ, Eisenberg JM: Changing physicians' practices. N Engl J Med 329: 1271–1273, 1993.
- 57 Elson RB, Connelly DP: Computerized patient records in primary care. Arch Fam Med 4: 698–705, 1995.
- 58 Martin AR, Wolf MA, Thibodeau LA, Dzau V, Braunwald E: A trial of two strategies to modify the test–ordering behavior of medical students. N Engl J Med 303: 1330–1336, 1980.
- 59 Pinkerton RE, Tinanoff N, Willms JL, Tapp JT: Resident physician performance in a continuing education format. Does newly acquired knowledge improve patient care? JAMA 244: 2183–2185, 1980.
- 60 Eddy DM: Clinical decision making: From theory to practice. Designing a practice policy. Standards, guidelines, and options. JAMA 263: 3077–3084, 1990.
- 61 Morris AH, James BC: CPI and computerized protocols: An example. In SD Horn, DSP Hopkins (eds): “ Clinical Practice Improvement: A New Technology for Developing Cost–Effective Quality Health Care.” New York: Faulkner & Gray, 1994, pp 141–149.
- 62 Restuccia JD: The effect of concurrent feedback in reducing inappropriate hospital utilization. Med Care 20: 46–62, 1982.
- 63 Hershey N: Compensation and accountability: The way to improve peer review. Qual Assur Util Rev 7: 23–29, 1992.
- 64 Thompson JS, Prior MA: Quality assurance and morbidity and mortality conference. J Surg Res 52: 97–100, 1992.
- 65 O'Connor GT, Plume SK, Olmstead EM, Morton JR, Maloney CT, Nugent WC, Hernandez F Jr, Clough R, Leavitt BJ, Coffin LH, Marrin CA, Wennberg D, Birkmeyer JD, Charlesworth DC, Malenka DJ, Quinton HB, Kasper JF: A regional intervention to improve the hospital mortality associated with coronary artery bypass graft surgery. JAMA 275: 841–846, 1996.
- 66 Hickson GB, Altemeier WA, Perrin JM: Physician reimbursement by salary or fee-for-service: Effect of physician practice behavior in a randomized prospective study. Pediatrics 80: 344–350, 1987.
- 67 Hillman AL, Pauly MV, Kerstein JJ: How do financial incentives affect physicians' clinical decisions and the financial performance of health maintenance organizations? N Engl J Med 321: 86–92, 1989.
- 68 Clemmer TP, Gardner RD: Medical informatics in the intensive care unit: State of the art 1991. Int J Clin Monit Comput 8: 237–250, 1992.
- 69 Shortliffe EH: Clinical decision-support systems. In EH Shortliffe, LE Perreault (eds): “ Medical Informatics: Computer Applications in Health Care.” Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1990, pp 466–502.
- 70 Curran WJ: Medical peer review of physician competence and performance: Legal immunity and the antitrust laws. N Engl J Med 316: 597–598, 1987.
- 71 Snelson E: Quality assurance implications of federal peer review laws. The Health Care Quality Improvement Act and the National Practitioner Data Bank. Qual Assur Util Rev 7: 2–11, 1992.
- 72 Neil BA: Medical review committees and privilege in the USA. Med Leg J 61: 219–224, 1993.
- 73 O'Leary DS: Peer review complements QI efforts. Jt Comm Perspect 11: 2–5, 1991.
- 74 Vogel RA, Topol EJ: Practice guidelines and physician scorecards: Grading the graders. Cleve Clin J Med 63: 124–128, 1996.