Suppr超能文献

美国当前颈动脉支架置入术的实践与认证概况

Snapshot of current carotid artery stenting practice and accreditation in the USA.

作者信息

Sacks David, Farrell Mary Beth, Katzen Barry T, Lally Mary, Matsumura Jon S, Merrill Nancy

机构信息

Department of Radiology/Interventional Radiology, The Reading Hospital and Medical Center, West Reading, Pennsylvania, USA.

Research, Intersocietal Accreditation Commission, Ellicott City, Maryland, USA.

出版信息

BMJ Open Qual. 2019 Oct 5;8(4):e000671. doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2019-000671. eCollection 2019.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this exploratory study was to compare the performance of carotid artery stenting (CAS) best practices between Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) accredited facilities and non-accredited facilities certified by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

METHODS

A random, anonymous survey was sent to CMS and IAC accredited facilities querying facility routine performance of 16 CAS procedure components found in published guidelines and utilised during clinical trials.

RESULTS

There were 28 responses (response rate=17%). Significant differences were found between the CMS and the IAC facilities for four of 16 procedure measures: determination of modified Rankin Scale score prior to stenting (p=0.012, 95% CI 20% to 80%), accurate measurement of per cent stenosis using electronic callipers (p=0.005, 95% CI 24% to 84%), confirmation of anticoagulation with activated clotting time greater than 250 s prior to crossing the lesion (p=0.03, 95% CI 7% to 69%), and comparison of facility outcomes to accepted benchmarks for stroke and death (p=0.03, 95% CI 7% to 69%). Overall, IAC facilities performed all 16 procedures more frequently (97%) than CMS facilities (66%) (p<0.001, 95% CI 24% to 36%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the sample size was small, the results demonstrated IAC accredited facilities are more likely to follow best practices, to use quantitative tools to select appropriate patients, and quantitively measure patient-centred clinical outcomes compared with CMS certified facilities. The findings raise the question as to the value of CMS certification versus IAC accreditation as a requirement for reimbursement.

摘要

目的

本探索性研究旨在比较经社会间认证委员会(IAC)认证的机构与经医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心(CMS)认证的非认证机构在颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)最佳实践方面的表现。

方法

向CMS和IAC认证的机构发送了一份随机、匿名调查问卷,询问其在已发表指南中发现并在临床试验中使用的16项CAS手术组件的设施常规表现。

结果

共收到28份回复(回复率 = 17%)。在16项手术指标中的4项上,CMS认证机构和IAC认证机构之间存在显著差异:支架置入术前改良Rankin量表评分的测定(p = 0.012,95%可信区间20%至80%)、使用电子卡尺准确测量狭窄百分比(p = 0.005,95%可信区间24%至84%)、在穿过病变前用活化凝血时间大于250秒确认抗凝(p = 0.03,95%可信区间7%至69%)以及将机构结果与公认的中风和死亡基准进行比较(p = 0.03,95%可信区间7%至69%)。总体而言,IAC认证机构比CMS认证机构更频繁地执行所有16项手术(97%对66%)(p < 0.001,95%可信区间24%至36%)。

结论

尽管样本量较小,但结果表明,与CMS认证机构相比,IAC认证机构更有可能遵循最佳实践,使用定量工具选择合适的患者,并定量测量以患者为中心的临床结果。这些发现引发了关于CMS认证与IAC认证作为报销要求的价值的问题。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

6
A comparison of clinical outcomes from carotid artery stenting among US hospitals.美国各医院颈动脉支架置入术临床结果的比较。
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014 Jul;7(4):574-80. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000819. Epub 2014 Jun 3.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验