Article Text

PDF
Review
Lifting the veil on stroke outcomes: revisiting stroke centers’ transparency through public reporting of metrics
  1. Kyle M Fargen1,
  2. James L West1,
  3. J Mocco2
  1. 1Department of Neurosurgery, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA
  2. 2Department of Neurosurgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, New York, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr. Kyle M Fargen, Department of Neurosurgery, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27103, USA; kfargen{at}wakehealth.edu

Abstract

Public reporting of healthcare metrics provides transparency that allows patients and emergency medical providers to make informed decisions about where patients should receive care. Most previous reports about public reporting of health metrics have demonstrated significant improvements in outcome metrics after implementation. However, no mechanism exists, voluntary or otherwise, for the public reporting of outcomes of stroke care. We review the components of public reporting of health outcomes data and its limited history in stroke outcomes. We summarize the literature on public reporting in cardiovascular interventions, particularly percutaneous coronary interventions, as a close corollary to mechanical neurothrombectomy. The benefits, limitations, and controversies associated with reporting of cardiovascular outcomes are reviewed with a focus on the development of risk-avoidant behaviors. This article serves as a primer for discussion of the potential benefits, limitations, and unintended consequences of public reporting of stroke data.

  • stroke
  • thrombectomy
  • economics

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors KMF: conception, study design, data collection, manuscript preparation; JLW: data collection, manuscript preparation; JM: conception, study design, manuscript preparation.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests JM: consultant – Rebound Medical, EndoStream, Cerebrotech Medical, Viseon, Synchron; investor – Apama, Viseon. TSP, Vastrax, EndoStream, Synchron, Cerebrotech Medical, Neurvana, NTI, Serenity.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.