{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019662921348314606, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0009363295880149813, 'mean_word_length': 5.896774193548387, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Quality assessment and improvement in interventional cardiology: A position statement of the society of cardiovascular angiography and interventions, Part II: Public reporting and risk adjustment

As described in Part I of this Position Statement [1], programmatic assessment of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes is fundamental to the delivery of high quality care. Quality improvement requires documenting clinical outcomes and modifying behaviors based on the data. Part II addresses public reporting, current risk models utilized in PCI, recommendations for their proper use and interpretation, and limitations in current methodologies. Currently, PCI quality is often judged based on advertising, Internet health grades, and public reporting of raw mortality rates. These sources lack sufficient detail and the expertise needed to provide accurate evaluations of facilities or individual operator quality. We propose that PCI quality appraisals be based on the development and use of risk-adjusted models that meaningfully assess clinical outcomes.