TABLE 1.

Views of cardiac surgeons in Ontario versus Pennsylvania (United States) (2) regarding reporting of outcomes for coronary artery bypass graft surgery

Question (likert response scale value reported)	Ontario, % (n=52)	Pennsylvania, % (n=36)
Do you support the public release of hospital-specific outcomes? (Yes)	51	–
Do you support the public release of surgeon-specific outcomes? (Yes)	26	–
Do you find reporting of risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality rates useful in monitoring quality of care? (useful)	73	86†
How important are risk-adjusted mortality rates in assessing the relative surgeon performance? (important)	83	32†
Do you think that public reporting is important in influencing referral patterns of cardiologists? (important)	84	13*
Do you think that public reporting is important in influencing patients choosing a cardiac surgeon? (important)	80	–
Do you slot high-risk patients to those surgeons who have better results or are more senior? (often)	66	–
Has the reporting of outcomes changed your willingness to operate on high-risk patients? (less willing)	24	63†
What do you believe are the limitations in accurately assessing surgical performance in outcomes reports?
Insensitive outcomes	27	78†
Inadequate risk adjustment	75	85†
Unreliable data sources	71	57†
Do you think any hospitals routinely upcode patient disease status and comorbidities in the data collected? (Yes)	84	–
Do you think adequate data for risk-adjusting of surgical outcomes is collected? (Yes)	39	–
What responses have you made in your practice in response to the institutional report cards?
Improved record keeping	17	–
Standing orders/care maps	10	–
Created a database	8	–
Audited charts to ensure evidence-based practices	6	–
Revised standing orders	6	–

^*Survey of a random sample of cardiologists in the state of Pennsylvania;

^†Survey of a random sample of cardiothoracic surgeons in the state of Pennsylvania