Pediatric/Congenital Cardiac Catheterization Quality: An Analysis of Existing Metrics.

TitlePediatric/Congenital Cardiac Catheterization Quality: An Analysis of Existing Metrics.
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2020
AuthorsO'Byrne ML, Huang J, Asztalos I, Smith CL, Dori Y, Gillespie MJ, Rome JJ, Glatz AC
JournalJACC Cardiovasc Interv
Volume13
Issue24
Pagination2853-2864
Date Published2020 Dec 28
ISSN1876-7605
Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to enumerate and categorize quality metrics relevant to the pediatric/congenital cardiac catheterization laboratory (PCCL).

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic and interventional catheterization procedures are an increasingly important part of the care of young patients with cardiac disease. Measurement of the performance of PCCL programs in a stringent and consistent fashion is a crucial step toward improving outcomes. To the best of our knowledge, a systematic evaluation of current quality metrics in PCCL has not been performed previously.

METHODS: Potential metrics were evaluated by: 1) a systematic review of peer-reviewed research; 2) a review of metrics from organizations interested in quality improvement, patient safety, and/or PCCL programs; and 3) a survey of U.S. PCCL cardiologists. Collected metrics were grouped on 2 dimensions: 1) Institute of Medicine domains; and 2) the Donabedian structure/process/outcome framework. Survey responses were dichotomized between favorable and unfavorable responses and then compared within and between categories.

RESULTS: In the systematic review, 6 metrics were identified (from 9 publications), all focused on safety either as an outcome (adverse events [AEs], mortality, and failure to rescue along with radiation exposure) or as a structure (procedure volume or operator experience). Four organizations measure quality metrics of PCCL programs, of which only 1 publicly reports data. For the survey, 229 cardiologists from 118 hospital programs responded (66% of individuals and 72% of hospital programs). The highest favorable ratings were for safety metrics (p < 0.001), of which major AEs, failure to rescue, and procedure-specific AEs had the highest ratings. Of respondents, 67% stated that current risk adjustment were not effective. Favorability ratings for hospital characteristics, PCCL characteristics, and quality improvement processes were significantly lower than for safety and less consistent within categories.

CONCLUSIONS: There is a limited number of PCCL quality metrics, primarily focused on safety. Confidence in current risk adjustment methodology is low. The knowledge gaps identified should guide future research in the development of new quality metrics.

DOI10.1016/j.jcin.2020.09.002
Alternate JournalJACC Cardiovasc Interv
PubMed ID33357522
PubMed Central IDPMC7773132
Grant ListK23 HL130420 / HL / NHLBI NIH HHS / United States