Despite enhancing transparency, public reporting may be leading to avoidance of life-saving procedures
In the United States, public reporting of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) has been implemented in several states to enhance transparency and accountability, with the intent of improving patient outcomes. However, the impact of public reporting remains a controversial issue. A growing body of evidence suggests that public reporting has not improved patient outcomes. In fact, robust evidence shows that it has instead led to risk aversion. Public reporting of PCI stands at the crossroads of competing priorities. By the principle of beneficence — “doing good” — public reporting seeks to enhance transparency, but it may violate the principle of non-maleficence — “do no harm” — through the unintended consequence of avoidance of high risk patients.
Publication of your online response is subject to the Medical Journal of Australia's editorial discretion. You will be notified by email within five working days should your response be accepted.