title: Public reporting and coronary revascularization: risk and benefit.
abstract: Since the 1980s, the evolution of public reporting of provider-specific and institution-specific clinical outcomes has historically been rooted in the field of cardiology. Although public reporting is not a novel concept, how we collect, analyze, report, and interpret outcome data remains a critical element in quality improvement and in the quest toward providing truly high-value care. In this review, we explore the emergence of public reporting within the scope of cardiovascular medicine, specifically as it relates to surgical and percutaneous coronary revascularization. We highlight both the advantages and the disadvantages of public reporting from the perspective of the patient, the practicing physician, the hospital, and the healthcare system. A discussion on the limitations of public reporting and specific strategies by which it can be improved is presented.
authors.affiliation: aDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee bCardiology Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
authors.forename: Michael N
authors.initials: MN
authors.lastname: Young
authors.forename: Robert W
authors.initials: RW
authors.lastname: Yeh
mesh_terms: D002309:Cardiology / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D033181:Information Dissemination; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care; D062645:Percutaneous Coronary Intervention / Q000592:standards*; D019984:Quality Indicators, Health Care; D018570:Risk Assessment