Quality assessment and tracking results of cardiac surgery.

Abstract

Long-standing efforts to assess quality in medical care have been intensified by the striking expansion of managed care plans. Agencies such as the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations and the National Committee on Quality Assurance have formalized the evaluation of health plan quality using criteria of structure, process, and outcome. A review of attempts to apply these criteria to individual physicians and to disease-specific interventions such as myocardial revascularization demonstrates the great difficulty of reliable quality assessment in this evolving surgical field. Cardiac surgeons must continue their work in deriving valid socioeconomic and clinical conclusions from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons and Veterans Affairs databases. This may prevent the precipitate adoption of newer treatment methods driven by entrepreneurial technology companies and large group purchasers of care. These entities tend to focus on economics rather than patient welfare. New technologies may also delude patients into insisting on treatment featuring short-term convenience and comfort despite less satisfactory long-term results. "Black box" methodology providing practice profiles and physician report cards must have critical validation.