Web Alert.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to identify preprocedure patient factors associated with percutaneous intervention costs and to examine the impact of these patient factors on economic profiles of interventional cardiologists. BACKGROUND: There is increasing demand for information about comparative resource use patterns of interventional cardiologists. Economic provider profiles, however, often fail to account for patient characteristics. METHODS: Data were obtained from Duke Medical Center cost and clinical information systems for 1,949 procedures performed by 13 providers between July 1, 1997, and December 31, 1998. Patient factors that influenced cost were identified using multiple regression analysis. After assessing interprovider variation in unadjusted cost, mixed linear models were used to examine how much cost variability was associated with the provider when patient characteristics were taken into account. RESULTS: Total hospital costs averaged $15,643 (median, $13,809), $6,515 of which represented catheterization laboratory costs. Disease severity, acuity, comorbid illness and lesion type influenced total costs (R(2) = 38%), whereas catheterization costs were affected by lesion type and acuity (R(2) = 32%). Patient characteristics varied significantly among providers. Unadjusted total costs were weakly associated with provider, and this association disappeared after accounting for patient factors. The provider influence on catheterization costs persisted after adjusting for patient characteristics. Furthermore, the pattern of variation changed: the adjusted analysis identified three new outliers, and two providers lost their outlier status. Only one provider was consistently identified as an outlier in the unadjusted and adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Economic profiles of interventional cardiologists may be misleading if they do not adequately adjust for patient characteristics before procedure.

Academic Medical Centers↗

PubMed2001

Variation in routine electrocardiogram use in academic primary care practice.

BACKGROUND: Lack of practical consensus regarding routine electrocardiogram (ECG) ordering in primary care led us to hypothesize that nonclinical variations in ordering would exist among primary care providers. METHODS: We used 2 computerized billing systems to measure ECG ordering at visits to providers in 10 internal medicine group practices affiliated with a large, urban teaching hospital from October 1, 1996, to September 30, 1997. To focus on screening or routine ECGs, patients with known cardiac disease or suggestive symptoms were excluded, as were providers with fewer than 200 annual patient visits. Included were 69 921 patients making 190 238 visits to 125 primary care providers. Adjusted rates of ECG ordering accounted for patient age, sex, and 5 key diagnoses. Logistic regression evaluated additional predictors of ECG ordering. RESULTS: Electrocardiograms were ordered in 4.4% of visits to patients without reported cardiac disease. Among the 10 group practices, ECG ordering varied from 0.5% to 9.6% of visits (adjusted rates, 0.8%-8.6%). Variations between individual providers were even more dramatic: adjusted rates ranged from 0.0% to 24% of visits, with an interquartile range of 1.4% to 4.7% and a coefficient of variation of 88%. Significant predictors of ECG use were older patient age, male sex, and the presence of clinical comorbidities. Additional nonclinical predictors included Medicare as a payment source, older male providers, and providers who billed for ECG interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: Variations in ECG ordering are not explained by patient characteristics. The tremendous nonclinical variations in ECG test ordering suggest a need for greater consensus about use of screening ECGs in primary care.

Academic Medical Centers↗