Interventional cardiologists' perceptions of percutaneous coronary intervention quality measurement and feedback

Interventional cardiologists receive feedback on their clinical care from a variety of sources including registry-based quality measures, case conferences, and informal peer interactions. However, the impact of this feedback on clinical care is unclear.

We interviewed interventional cardiologists regarding the use of feedback to improve their care of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients. Interviews were assessed with template analysis using deductive and inductive techniques.

Among 20 interventional cardiologists from private, academic, and Department of Veterans Affairs practice, 85% were male, 75% performed at least 100 PCIs annually, and 55% were in practice for 5 years or more. All reported receiving feedback on their practice, including formal quality measures and peer learning activities. Many respondents were critical of quality measure reporting, citing lack of trust in outcomes measures and poor applicability to clinical care. Some respondents reported the use of process measures such as contrast volume and fluoroscopy time for benchmarking their performance. Case conferences and informal peer feedback were perceived as timelier and more impactful on clinical care. Respondents identified facilitators of successful feedback interventions including transparent processes, respectful and reciprocal peer relationships, and integration of feedback into collective goals. Hierarchy and competitive environments inhibited useful feedback.

Despite substantial resources dedicated to performance measurement and feedback for PCI, interventional cardiologists perceive existing quality measures to be of only modest value for improving clinical care. Catherization laboratories should seek to integrate quality measures into a holistic quality program that emphasizes peer learning, collective goals and mutual respect.