Skip to main content
Log in

Impact of attributed audit on procedural performance in cardiac electrophysiology catheter laboratory

  • Published:
Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Audit has played a key role in monitoring and improving clinical practice. However, audit often fails to drive change as summative institutional data alone may be insufficient to do so. We hypothesised that the practice of attributed audit, wherein each individual’s procedural performance is presented will have a greater impact on clinical practice. This hypothesis was tested in an observational study evaluating improvement in fluoroscopy times for AF ablation.

Methods

Retrospective analyses of fluoroscopy times in AF ablations at the Barts Heart Centre (BHC) from 2012–2017. Fluoroscopy times were compared pre- and post- the introduction of attributed audit in 2012 at St Bartholomew’s Hospital (SBH). In order to test the hypothesis, this concept was introduced to a second group of experienced operators from the Heart Hospital (HH) as part of a merger of the two institutions in 2015 and change in fluoroscopy times recorded.

Results

A significant drop in fluoroscopy times (33.3 ± 9.14 to 8.95 ± 2.50, p < 0.0001) from 2012-2014 was noted after the introduction of attributed audit. At the time of merger, a significant difference in fluoroscopy times between operators from the two centres was seen in 2015. Each operator’s procedural performance was shared openly at the audit meeting. Subsequent audits showed a steady decrease in fluoroscopy times for each operator with the fluoroscopy time (min, mean±SD) decreasing from 13.29 ± 7.3 in 2015 to 8.84 ± 4.8 (p < 0.0001) in 2017 across the entire group.

Conclusions

Systematic improvement in fluoroscopy times for AF ablation procedures was noted byevaluating individual operators’ performance. Attributing data to physicians in attributed audit can promptsignificant improvement and hence should be adopted in clinical practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Calkins H, et al. 2012 HRS/EHRA/ECAS expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: recommendations for patient selection, procedural techniques, patient management and follow-up, definitions, endpoints, and research trial design. Europace. 2012;14(4):528–06.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ivers N, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;6:CD000259.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Paton JY, Ranmal R, Dudley J, RCPCH clinical standards committee. Clinical audit: still an important tool for improving healthcare. Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed. 2015;100(2):83–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Erasmus RT, Zemlin AE. Clinical audit in the laboratory. J Clin Pathol. 2009 Jul;62(7):593–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Shaw CD. Measuring against clinical standards. Clin Chim Acta. 2003;333:115–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Surgical Outcomes – Royal College of Surgeons. https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/patient-care/surgical-staff-and.../surgical-outcomes/. Accessed Online 10th September 2017.

  7. Spurgeon P, Barwell F, Mazelan P. Developing a medical engagement scale (MES). Int J Clin Leadership. 2008;16:213–23.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Atkinson S, et al. Engaging doctors: what can we learn from trusts with high levels of medical engagement? UK: NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement and Academy of Medical Royal Colleges; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cameron M, Penney G, MacLennan G, McLeer S, Walker A. Impact on maternity professionals of novel approaches to clinical audit feedback. Eval Health Prof. 2007;30(1):75–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge the enormous contribution of David Bays, who helped develop our electronic AF ablation registry and helped with organising data collection. The registry played a central role in testing the hypothesis of the present study.

Contributorship

VS: data collection, data analyses, manuscript draft and preparation; EV: data collection, MS: data collection; FK: manuscript review; OS: manuscript review; SA: manuscript review; AC: manuscript review; VE: manuscript review; MF: manuscript review; PL: manuscript review; ML: manuscript review; MD: manuscript review; SS: manuscript review; MJE: manuscript review; RH: supervised data collection, manuscript review; RJS: study concept and design, initiated open audit in trust, supervised data collection and manuscript draft, manuscript review

Funding

Cost-neutral study

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. Sawhney.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sawhney, V., Volkova, E., Shaukat, M. et al. Impact of attributed audit on procedural performance in cardiac electrophysiology catheter laboratory. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 56, 199–203 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-018-0383-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-018-0383-6

Keywords

Navigation