Characteristics of new cardiac surgery programs in the United States: mitigating the learning curve.

BACKGROUND: New cardiac surgery programs continue to open across the United States, and it is not known how new programs deal with potentially low volumes during their start-up period. We compared patient, procedure, and physician characteristics and short-term mortality at established cardiac surgery programs, new programs in general hospitals, and new specialty cardiac hospitals. METHODS: We used Medicare Provider Analysis and Review, part B physician claims, and denominator files to evaluate established and new programs performing coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) from 1994-2003. Short-term mortality was defined as death in-hospital or within 30 days. RESULTS: From 1994-2003, 257 new programs in general hospitals and 20 new specialty hospitals opened; and 884 established programs were in operation. New programs in general hospitals had much lower CABG volume than established programs and performed fewer concomitant valves and reoperations. New specialty hospitals had high CABG volume from inception, similar valve and reoperation rates to established programs, and conducted more elective procedures. Short-term mortality was significantly lower at new programs in general hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Start-up strategies used by new specialty hospitals and new programs in general hospitals differed markedly. By choosing to conduct safer procedures on low-risk patients, new general programs may have offset potential concerns about operating at low volume. Neither type of new program exhibited an increased risk of short-term mortality. The high volume at specialty hospitals may reassure patients and policy makers, although the high proportion of elective procedures and the new program's effect on surrounding hospitals require further consideration.

Variation in cardiologists' propensity to test and treat: is it associated with regional variation in utilization?

BACKGROUND: Regional variation in healthcare utilization, including cardiac testing and procedures, is well documented. Some factors underlying such variation are understood, including resource supply. However, less is known about how physician behaviors and attitudes may influence variation in utilization across regions. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a survey of a national sample of cardiologists using patients vignettes to ascertain physicians' self-reported propensity to test and treat patients with cardiovascular problems, computing a Cardiac Intensity Score for each physician based on his/her responses intended to measure the physician's propensity to recommend high-tech and/or invasive tests and treatments. In addition, we asked under what circumstances they would order a cardiac catheterization "for other than purely clinical reasons." For some survey items, there was substantial variation in physician responses. We found that the Cardiac Intensity Score was associated with 2 measures of population based healthcare utilization measured within geographic regions, with a stronger association with general healthcare spending than with delivery of cardiac services. Although nearly all physicians denied ordering a potentially unnecessary cardiac catheterization for financial reasons, some physicians acknowledged ordering the test for other reasons, including meeting patient and referring physician expectations, meeting peer expectations, and malpractice concerns. More than 27% of respondents reported ordering a cardiac catheterization if a colleague would in the same situation frequently or sometimes, and nearly 24% reported doing so out of fear of malpractice. These 2 factors were significantly associated with the propensity to test and treat, but only fear of malpractice was associated with regional utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Variability in cardiologists' propensity to test and treat partly underlies regional variation in utilization of general health and cardiology services. The factor most closely associated with this propensity was fear of malpractice suits. This factor may be an appropriate target of intervention.

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: referral source for genetic assessment and communication regarding assessment with nongenetic clinicians in the community setting.

PURPOSE: To examine referral source to cancer genetic services; communication of results of genetic evaluation to clinicians; role of clinicians in postcounseling management; and use of alternative information sources after cancer genetic risk assessment/counseling in the community setting. METHODS: Retrospective telephone survey. SETTING: A community/private hospital-based cancer genetic counseling service. PATIENTS: Women, at least 21 years of age, who had undergone cancer genetic counseling with (1) at least a 10% predicted likelihood of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation or (2) a documented BRCA1/2 mutation. INTERVENTION: A 121-item telephone survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: (1) initial referral source to cancer genetic services; (2) women's communication of results of cancer genetic assessment to primary and (nongenetic) specialist clinician(s); (3) education and support role played by subjects' physician(s); and (4) use of other hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) information resources. RESULTS: Of 225 women eligible for study, 69 (31%) completed the survey. Sixty-two percent were referred by their medical oncologist; 13% by their primary care physician, and fewer by their surgeon (6%) or gynecologist (4%). Results of the cancer genetic assessment were not shared with 19% of primary care clinicians, 26% of primary gynecologists, 12% of oncologists, and 36% of surgeons. Twenty-six percent of participants noted that their primary care clinician had not been involved in their HBOC-related, cancer prevention decisions, 16% had not included their gynecologist, 2% had not involved their oncologist, and 20% replied that their surgeon had not been involved in these decisions. Overall, clinicians were perceived as supportive when it came to a participants' information and decision support needs. One exception was that 21% of respondents reported the use by clinicians of medical terms, without definition. Over two-thirds had sought alternative "self-help" HBOC-related materials, most Internet based. CONCLUSIONS: These results have implications for interdisciplinary communication and decision support for those with or at risk for HBOC, cared for in the community setting.