Public reporting of physician-specific outcome data for procedures, such as percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), can influence physicians to avoid high-risk patients who may benefit from treatment. Prior physician attitudes toward public scorecards in New York State (NYS) have been studied, but the exclusion criteria have evolved. Additionally, patient perceptions toward such reports remain poorly understood. This study evaluates (1) whether exclusion of certain high-risk patients from public reporting of PCI outcomes in NYS has influenced physician attitudes, (2) current patient awareness and use of publicly reported outcome data, and (3) differences in physician and patient attitudes toward public reporting.Methods and Results—
A questionnaire was administered to interventional cardiologists in NYS with specific emphasis on how modifications in publicly reported outcome data have influenced their practice. The results were compared with a 2003 survey administered by our group. A separate questionnaire regarding the publicly available NYS PCI Report was administered to patients referred to our center for possible PCI. The majority of interventional cardiologists indicated that the exclusion of patients with anoxic brain injury and refractory cardiogenic shock from public reporting has made them more likely to perform PCI for these subgroups. While patient awareness of the NYS PCI Report was low, patients were significantly more likely than physicians to think that publication of physician-specific mortality data can provide an accurate measure of physician quality, serve to improve patient care, and provide useful information in terms of physician selection.Conclusions—
The study provides further evidence that public reporting of physician-specific outcome data influences physician behavior and indicates that significant discrepancies exist in how scorecards are perceived by physicians versus patients.