MJA
MJA

Public reporting of percutaneous coronary interventions

David Enze Wang, Rishi K Wadhera and Deepak L Bhatt
Med J Aust 2018; 209 (3): . || doi: 10.5694/mja18.00569
Published online: 6 August 2018

Despite enhancing transparency, public reporting may be leading to avoidance of life-saving procedures

In the United States, public reporting of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) has been implemented in several states to enhance transparency and accountability, with the intent of improving patient outcomes. However, the impact of public reporting remains a controversial issue. A growing body of evidence suggests that public reporting has not improved patient outcomes. In fact, robust evidence shows that it has instead led to risk aversion. Public reporting of PCI stands at the crossroads of competing priorities. By the principle of beneficence — “doing good” — public reporting seeks to enhance transparency, but it may violate the principle of non-maleficence — “do no harm” — through the unintended consequence of avoidance of high risk patients.

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.