Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38660107›Full record

ArticleJACC. Asia2024

Benchmarking System Monitoring on Quality Improvement in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Nationwide Registry in Japan.

Yuichi Saito, Taku Inohara, Shun Kohsaka, Hideki Wada, Hiraku Kumamaru, Kyohei Yamaji, Hideki Ishii, Tetsuya Amano, Hiroaki Miyata, Yoshio Kobayashi and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JACC. Asia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Yuichi SaitoDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba, Japan.
Taku InoharaDepartment of Cardiology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Shun KohsakaDepartment of Cardiology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Hideki WadaDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Juntendo University Shizuoka Hospital, Izunokuni, Japan.
Hiraku KumamaruDepartment of Healthcare Quality Assessment, Graduate School of Medicine, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Kyohei YamajiDepartment of Cardiology, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Hideki IshiiDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Gunma, Japan.
Tetsuya AmanoDepartment of Cardiology, Aichi Medical University, Nagakute, Japan.
Hiroaki MiyataDepartment of Healthcare Quality Assessment, Graduate School of Medicine, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Yoshio KobayashiDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba, Japan.
Ken KozumaDepartment of Cardiology, Teikyo University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
J-PCI Registry Investigators
Chiba University · JPKeio University · JPThe University of Tokyo · JPAichi Medical University · JPGunma University · JPJuntendo University Shizuoka Hospital · JPKyoto University · JPTeikyo University Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Quality indicators (QIs) have been developed to improve and standardize care quality in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In Japan, consecutive PCI procedures are registered in a nationwide database (the Japanese Percutaneous Coronary Intervention registry), which introduces a benchmarking system for comparing individual institutional performance against the national average. Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the benchmarking system implementation on QI improvement at the hospital level. Methods: A total of 734,264 PCIs were conducted at 1,194 institutions between January 2019 and December 2021. In January 2018, a web-based benchmarking system encompassing 7 QIs for PCI at the institutional level, including door-to-balloon time and rate of transradial intervention, was introduced. The process by which institutions tracked their QIs was centrally monitored. Results: During the 3-year study period, the benchmarking system was reviewed at least once at 742 institutions (62.1%) (median 4 times; Q1-Q3: 2-7 times). The institutions that reviewed their records had higher PCI volumes. Among these institutions, although door-to-balloon time was not directly associated, the proportion of transradial intervention increased by 2.3% in the system review group during the initial year compared with 0.7% in their counterparts. However, in the subsequent year, the association between system reviews and QI improvement was attenuated. Conclusions: The implementation of a benchmarking system, reviewed by participating institutions in Japan, was partially associated with improved QIs during the first year; however, this improvement was attenuated in the subsequent year, highlighting the need for further efforts to develop effective and sustainable interventions to enhance care quality in PCI.

Indexed as

benchmarkingfeedbackpercutaneous coronary interventionquality indicator

Identifiers

PMID38660107
PMCPMC11035937
OpenAlexW4391952981

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.