• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

评价一种用于静脉内热消融术的实践变异性和成本的医师同行基准比较干预措施。

Evaluation of a Physician Peer-Benchmarking Intervention for Practice Variability and Costs for Endovenous Thermal Ablation.

机构信息

Department of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland.

R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, Baltimore, Maryland.

出版信息

JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Dec 1;4(12):e2137515. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.37515.

DOI:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.37515
PMID:34905006
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8672233/
Abstract

IMPORTANCE

The frequency of use of endovenous thermal ablation (EVTA) to treat chronic venous insufficiency has increased rapidly in the US. Wide variability in EVTA use among physicians has been documented, and standard EVTA rates were defined in the 2017 Medicare database.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether providing individualized physician performance reports is associated with reduced variability in EVTA use and cost savings.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective quality improvement study used data from all US Medicare patients aged 18 years or older who underwent at least 1 EVTA between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2017, and between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2019. All US physicians who performed at least 11 EVTAs yearly for Medicare patients in 2017 and 2019 were included in the assessment.

INTERVENTION

A performance report comprising individual physician EVTA use per patient with peer-benchmarking data was distributed to all physicians in November 2018.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The mean number of EVTAs performed per patient was calculated for each physician. Physicians who performed 3.4 or more EVTA procedures per patient per year were considered outliers. The change in the number of procedures from 2017 to 2019 was analyzed overall and by inlier and outlier status. An economic analysis was also performed to estimate the cost savings associated with the intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 188 976 patients (102 222 in 2017 and 86 754 in 2019) who had an EVTA performed by 1558 physicians were included in the analysis. The median patient age was 72.2 years (IQR, 67.9-77.8 years); 67.3% of patients were female, and 84.9% were White. Among all physicians, the mean (SD) number of EVTAs per patient decreased from 2017 to 2019 (1.97 [0.85] vs 1.89 [0.77]; P < .001). There was a modest decrease in the mean number of EVTAs per patient among inlier physicians (1.83 [0.57] vs 1.78 [0.55]; P < .001) and a more substantial decrease among outlier physicians (4.40 [1.01] vs 3.67 [1.41] ; P < .001). Outliers in 2017 consisted of 90 physicians, of whom 71 (78.9%) reduced their EVTA use after the intervention. The number of EVTAs per patient decreased by a mean (SD) of 0.09 (0.46) procedures overall (median, 0.10 procedures [IQR, -0.10 to 0.30 procedures]; P < .001). The estimated cost savings associated with the decrease was $6.3 million in 2019.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this quality improvement study, substantial variability in the number of EVTAs performed per patient was observed across the US. When physicians were provided with a 1-time peer-benchmarked performance report card, the timing of the intervention was associated with a significant decrease in the number of EVTAs performed per patient, particularly among outlier physicians. This quality improvement initiative was associated with reduced variability in EVTA use in the US and a substantial savings for Medicare.

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/be9d/8672233/89d85030d6aa/jamanetwopen-e2137515-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/be9d/8672233/dea5972ceb1e/jamanetwopen-e2137515-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/be9d/8672233/89d85030d6aa/jamanetwopen-e2137515-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/be9d/8672233/dea5972ceb1e/jamanetwopen-e2137515-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/be9d/8672233/89d85030d6aa/jamanetwopen-e2137515-g002.jpg
摘要

重要性

在美国,静脉内热消融 (EVTA) 治疗慢性静脉功能不全的使用频率迅速增加。已经记录了医生之间 EVTA 使用的广泛差异,并且在 2017 年医疗保险数据库中定义了标准的 EVTA 率。

目的

评估提供个性化医生绩效报告是否与降低 EVTA 使用的变异性和节省成本有关。

设计、设置和参与者:这是一项前瞻性质量改进研究,使用了 2017 年 1 月 1 日至 2017 年 12 月 31 日和 2019 年 1 月 1 日至 2019 年 12 月 31 日期间至少接受过 1 次 EVTA 的所有美国 Medicare 患者的数据。所有在 2017 年和 2019 年每年为 Medicare 患者进行至少 11 次 EVTA 的美国医生都被纳入评估。

干预措施

2018 年 11 月向所有医生分发了一份包含每位患者 EVTA 使用情况和同行基准数据的绩效报告。

主要结果和测量

为每位医生计算了每位患者进行的 EVTA 平均数量。每年每位患者进行 3.4 次或更多 EVTA 手术的医生被认为是异常值。从 2017 年到 2019 年,对手术数量的变化进行了总体分析,并按异常值和正常值状态进行了分析。还进行了经济分析,以估计与干预相关的成本节约。

结果

共纳入了 188976 名患者(2017 年 102222 名和 2019 年 86754 名),这些患者由 1558 名医生进行了 EVTA。患者的中位年龄为 72.2 岁(IQR,67.9-77.8 岁);67.3%的患者为女性,84.9%为白人。在所有医生中,每位患者的 EVTA 数量从 2017 年到 2019 年有所减少(1.97 [0.85] vs 1.89 [0.77];P<0.001)。在正常值医生中,每位患者的 EVTA 数量适度减少(1.83 [0.57] vs 1.78 [0.55];P<0.001),而在异常值医生中则明显减少(4.40 [1.01] vs 3.67 [1.41];P<0.001)。2017 年的异常值包括 90 名医生,其中 71 名(78.9%)在干预后减少了 EVTA 的使用。每位患者的 EVTA 数量平均减少 0.09(0.46)次(中位数为 0.10 次[IQR,-0.10 至 0.30 次];P<0.001)。与减少相关的估计节省成本为 2019 年 630 万美元。

结论和相关性

在这项质量改进研究中,在美国观察到每位患者进行的 EVTA 数量存在很大差异。当医生获得一次性同行基准绩效报告卡时,干预的时间与每位患者进行的 EVTA 数量显著减少有关,尤其是在异常值医生中。这项质量改进计划与美国 EVTA 使用的变异性降低和医疗保险的大量节省有关。

相似文献

1
Evaluation of a Physician Peer-Benchmarking Intervention for Practice Variability and Costs for Endovenous Thermal Ablation.评价一种用于静脉内热消融术的实践变异性和成本的医师同行基准比较干预措施。
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Dec 1;4(12):e2137515. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.37515.
2
Significant physician practice variability in the utilization of endovenous thermal ablation in the 2017 Medicare population.2017 年 Medicare 人群中,静脉内热消融的应用存在显著的医师实践变异性。
J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2019 Nov;7(6):808-816.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2019.06.019. Epub 2019 Sep 5.
3
Correlation of body mass index with recanalization risk after endovenous thermal ablation.静脉内热消融术后体重指数与再通风险的相关性。
J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2022 Jan;10(1):82-86. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2021.07.001. Epub 2021 Jul 13.
4
Persistent symptoms after endovenous thermal ablation may suggest proximal venous outflow obstruction.静脉内热消融术后持续存在的症状可能提示近端静脉流出道阻塞。
J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2020 Mar;8(2):231-236. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2019.04.015. Epub 2019 Aug 13.
5
Clinical outcomes following mechanochemical ablation of superficial venous incompetence compared with endothermal ablation: meta-analysis.比较机械化学消融与热消融治疗浅静脉功能不全的临床结果:荟萃分析。
Br J Surg. 2023 Apr 12;110(5):562-567. doi: 10.1093/bjs/znad048.
6
Evaluation of a Peer-to-Peer Data Transparency Intervention for Mohs Micrographic Surgery Overuse.一项针对莫氏显微外科手术过度使用的点对点数据透明度干预措施的评估。
JAMA Dermatol. 2019 Aug 1;155(8):906-913. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.1259.
7
Comparison of unilateral vs bilateral and staged bilateral vs concurrent bilateral truncal endovenous ablation in the Vascular Quality Initiative.血管质量倡议中单侧与双侧和分期双侧与同期双侧主干静脉内消融的比较。
J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2021 Jan;9(1):113-121.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2020.05.008. Epub 2020 May 26.
8
Comparative outcomes of different endovenous thermal ablation systems on great and small saphenous vein insufficiency: Long-term results.不同静脉内热消融系统治疗大隐静脉和小隐静脉功能不全的比较结果:长期结果
Lasers Surg Med. 2015 Feb;47(2):156-60. doi: 10.1002/lsm.22335. Epub 2015 Feb 24.
9
Incidence of venous leg ulcer healing and recurrence after treatment with endovenous laser ablation.静脉内激光消融治疗后静脉性腿部溃疡愈合和复发的发生率。
J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2017 Jul;5(4):525-532. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2017.02.007. Epub 2017 May 12.
10
A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Thrombotic Events Following Endovenous Thermal Ablation of the Great Saphenous Vein.大隐静脉静脉内热消融术后血栓事件的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018 Sep;56(3):410-424. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2018.05.008. Epub 2018 Jun 9.

引用本文的文献

1
5-Year Follow-Up of a Physician Performance Feedback Report Intervention to Reduce Overuse and Excess Cost: A National Cohort Study.5 年随访医师绩效反馈报告干预以减少过度医疗和过度费用:一项全国队列研究。
Dermatol Surg. 2024 Jun 1;50(6):558-564. doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000004165. Epub 2024 Apr 5.
2
Automatic 1-year follow-up appointment creation and reminders can improve long-term follow-up after carotid revascularization.自动创建1年随访预约并发送提醒可改善颈动脉血运重建后的长期随访情况。
Am J Surg. 2024 Jan;227:57-62. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2023.09.032. Epub 2023 Sep 27.
3
Incorrect Spelling of a Surname in the Byline.

本文引用的文献

1
Extended Center for Vein Restoration study assessing comparative outcomes for the treatment of chronic venous insufficiency in Medicare- and non-Medicare-eligible patients.扩展静脉修复中心研究评估了医疗保险和非医疗保险资格患者慢性静脉功能不全治疗的比较结果。
J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2021 Nov;9(6):1426-1436.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2021.04.015. Epub 2021 May 7.
2
Significant physician practice variability in the utilization of endovenous thermal ablation in the 2017 Medicare population.2017 年 Medicare 人群中,静脉内热消融的应用存在显著的医师实践变异性。
J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2019 Nov;7(6):808-816.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2019.06.019. Epub 2019 Sep 5.
3
署名中姓氏的拼写错误。
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Jan 4;5(1):e2147752. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.47752.
Outcomes of carotid endarterectomy in the Vascular Quality Initiative based on patch type.
基于补片类型的血管质量倡议中颈动脉内膜切除术的结果。
J Vasc Surg. 2020 Apr;71(4):1260-1267. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2019.05.063. Epub 2019 Sep 3.
4
Evaluation of a Peer-to-Peer Data Transparency Intervention for Mohs Micrographic Surgery Overuse.一项针对莫氏显微外科手术过度使用的点对点数据透明度干预措施的评估。
JAMA Dermatol. 2019 Aug 1;155(8):906-913. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.1259.
5
The Seriousness of Chronic Venous Disease: A Review of Real-World Evidence.慢性静脉疾病的严重性:真实世界证据的综述。
Adv Ther. 2019 Mar;36(Suppl 1):5-12. doi: 10.1007/s12325-019-0881-7. Epub 2019 Feb 13.
6
Surgeon Re-Excision Rates after Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Measure of Low-Value Care.保乳手术后外科医生再次切除率:低价值医疗的衡量标准。
J Am Coll Surg. 2019 Apr;228(4):504-512.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2018.12.043. Epub 2019 Jan 29.
7
Effect of Peer Comparison Letters for High-Volume Primary Care Prescribers of Quetiapine in Older and Disabled Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.高剂量喹硫平用于老年和残疾成年人的初级保健开方者的同行比较信的效果:一项随机临床试验。
JAMA Psychiatry. 2018 Oct 1;75(10):1003-1011. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.1867.
8
Trauma Quality Improvement: Reducing Triage Errors by Automating the Level Assignment Process.创伤质量改进:通过自动化分诊级别分配过程减少分诊错误。
J Surg Educ. 2018 Nov;75(6):1551-1557. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.03.014. Epub 2018 Apr 12.
9
Overtreatment in the United States.美国的过度治疗。
PLoS One. 2017 Sep 6;12(9):e0181970. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181970. eCollection 2017.
10
A comprehensive Choosing Wisely quality improvement initiative reduces unnecessary transfusions in an Academic Department of Surgery.一项全面的“明智选择”质量改进计划减少了外科医学术部门不必要的输血。
Am J Surg. 2017 Oct;214(4):571-576. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.06.020. Epub 2017 Jun 29.