Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Accreditation Status of Outpatient Cerebrovascular Testing Facilities Among Medicare Beneficiaries: The VALUE Study.

OBJECTIVES: Accreditation of cerebrovascular ultrasound laboratories by the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) and equivalent organizations is supported by the Joint Commission certification of stroke centers. Limited information exists on the accreditation status and geographic distribution of cerebrovascular testing facilities in the United States. Our study objectives were to identify the proportion of IAC-accredited outpatient cerebrovascular testing facilities used by Medicare beneficiaries, describe their geographic distribution, and identify variations in cerebrovascular testing procedure types and volumes by accreditation status. METHODS: As part of the VALUE (Vascular Accreditation, Location, and Utilization Evaluation) Study, we examined the proportion of IAC-accredited facilities that conducted cerebrovascular testing in a 5% Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services random Outpatient Limited Data Set in 2011 and investigated their geographic distribution using geocoding. RESULTS: Among 7327 outpatient facilities billing Medicare for cerebrovascular testing, only 22% (1640) were IAC accredited. The proportion of IAC-accredited cerebrovascular testing facilities varied by region (χ(2)[3] = 177.1; P < .0001), with 29%, 15%, 13%, and 10% located in the Northeast, South, Midwest, and West, respectively. However, of the total number of cerebrovascular outpatient procedures conducted in 2011 (38,555), 40% (15,410) were conducted in IAC-accredited facilities. Most cerebrovascular testing procedures were carotid duplex, with 40% of them conducted in IAC-accredited facilities. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of facilities conducting outpatient cerebrovascular testing accredited by the IAC is low and varies by region. The growing number of certified stroke centers should be accompanied by more accredited outpatient vascular testing facilities, which could potentially improve the quality of stroke care.

Accreditation status and geographic location of outpatient vascular testing facilities among Medicare beneficiaries: the VALUE (Vascular Accreditation, Location & Utilization Evaluation) study.

OBJECTIVE: There is limited information on the accreditation status and geographic distribution of vascular testing facilities in the US. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) provide reimbursement to facilities regardless of accreditation status. The aims were to: (1) identify the proportion of Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) accredited vascular testing facilities in a 5% random national sample of Medicare beneficiaries receiving outpatient vascular testing services; (2) describe the geographic distribution of these facilities. METHODS: The VALUE (Vascular Accreditation, Location & Utilization Evaluation) Study examines the proportion of IAC accredited facilities providing vascular testing procedures nationally, and the geographic distribution and utilization of these facilities. The data set containing all facilities that billed Medicare for outpatient vascular testing services in 2011 (5% CMS Outpatient Limited Data Set (LDS) file) was examined, and locations of outpatient vascular testing facilities were obtained from the 2011 CMS/Medicare Provider of Services (POS) file. RESULTS: Of 13,462 total vascular testing facilities billing Medicare for vascular testing procedures in a 5% random Outpatient LDS for the US in 2011, 13% (n=1730) of facilities were IAC accredited. The percentage of IAC accredited vascular testing facilities in the LDS file varied significantly by US region, p<0.0001: 26%, 12%, 11%, and 7% for the Northeast, South, Midwest, and Western regions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that the proportion of outpatient vascular testing facilities that are IAC accredited is low and varies by region. Increasing the number of accredited vascular testing facilities to improve test quality is a hypothesis that should be tested in future research.

Trends in a changing vascular practice environment for members of the Society for Vascular Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To survey the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) membership with regard to practice trends related to work effort, employment status, practice ownership, endovascular cases, and anticipated changes in practice in the near future. METHODS: A survey questionnaire was developed to gather information about member demographics and practice, hours worked, full-time (FT) or part-time status, employment status, practice ownership, competition for referrals, proportion of endovascular vs open procedures, and anticipated changes in practice in the next 3 years. We used SurveyMonkey and distributed the survey to all active vascular surgeon (VS) members of the SVS. RESULTS: The response rate was 207 of 2230 (10.7%). Two thirds were in private practice, and 21% were in solo practice. Twenty-four percent were employed by hospitals/health systems. Those VS under the age of 50 years were more likely to exclusively practice vascular surgery compared with VS over the age of 50 years (P = .0003). Sixty-eight of the physicians (32.7%) were between 50 and 59 years old, 186 (90.3%) were men, 192 (92.8%) worked FT (>36 hours of patient care per week), and almost two thirds worked >60 hours per week. Those in physician-owned practices worked >40 hours of patient care per week more often than did FT employed VS (P = .012). Younger VS (age <50 years) more frequently reported >50% of their workload being endovascular compared with older VS (age ≥50 years; P < .001). Eighty percent of FT VS planned to continue their current practice over the next 3 years. Of the 43.6% indicating loss of referrals, 82% pointed to cardiologists as the competition. CONCLUSIONS: The current workforce is predominately male and works FT; one-third is between the ages of 50 and 59 years. Younger VS (age <50 years) are more likely to exclusively practice VS and have a higher caseload of endovascular procedures. Those in physician-owned practices are more likely to put in >40 hours of patient care per week than are FT employed VS. Longitudinal surveys of SVS members are imperative to help tailor educational, training, and practice management offerings, guide governmental activities, advocate for issues important to members, improve branding initiatives, and sponsor workforce analyses.

Validation of Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) with other venous severity assessment tools from the American Venous Forum, National Venous Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: Several standard venous assessment tools have been used as independent determinants of venous disease severity, but correlation between these instruments as a global venous screening tool has not been tested. The scope of this study is to assess the validity of Venous Clinical Severity Scoring (VCSS) and its integration with other venous assessment tools as a global venous screening instrument. METHODS: The American Venous Forum (AVF), National Venous Screening Program (NVSP) data registry from 2007 to 2009 was queried for participants with complete datasets, including CEAP clinical staging, VCSS, modified Chronic Venous Insufficiency Quality of Life (CIVIQ) assessment, and venous ultrasound results. Statistical correlation trends were analyzed using Spearman's rank coefficient as related to VCSS. RESULTS: Five thousand eight hundred fourteen limbs in 2,907 participants were screened and included CEAP clinical stage C0: 26%; C1: 33%; C2: 24%; C3: 9%; C4: 7%; C5: 0.5%; C6: 0.2% (mean, 1.41 ± 1.22). VCSS mean score distribution (range, 0-3) for the entire cohort included: pain 1.01 ± 0.80, varicose veins 0.61 ± 0.84, edema 0.61 ± 0.81, pigmentation 0.15 ± 0.47, inflammation 0.07 ± 0.33, induration 0.04 ± 0.27, ulcer number 0.004 ± 0.081, ulcer size 0.007 ± 0.112, ulcer duration 0.007 ± 0.134, and compression 0.30 ± 0.81. Overall correlation between CEAP and VCSS was moderately strong (r(s) = 0.49; P < .0001), with highest correlation for attributes reflecting more advanced disease, including varicose vein (r(s) = 0.51; P < .0001), pigmentation (r(s) = 0.39; P < .0001), inflammation (r(s) = 0.28; P < .0001), induration (r(s) = 0.22; P < .0001), and edema (r(s) = 0.21; P < .0001). Based on the modified CIVIQ assessment, overall mean score for each general category included: Quality of Life (QoL)-Pain 6.04 ± 3.12 (range, 3-15), QoL-Functional 9.90 ± 5.32 (range, 5-25), and QoL-Social 5.41 ± 3.09 (range, 3-15). Overall correlation between CIVIQ and VCSS was moderately strong (r(s) = 0.43; P < .0001), with the highest correlation noted for pain (r(s) = 0.55; P < .0001) and edema (r(s) = 0.30; P < .0001). Based on screening venous ultrasound results, 38.1% of limbs had reflux and 1.5% obstruction in the femoral, saphenous, or popliteal vein segments. Correlation between overall venous ultrasound findings (reflux + obstruction) and VCSS was slightly positive (r(s) = 0.23; P < .0001) but was highest for varicose vein (r(s) = 0.32; P < .0001) and showed no correlation to swelling (r(s) = 0.06; P < .0001) and pain (r(s) = 0.003; P = .7947). CONCLUSIONS: While there is correlation between VCSS, CEAP, modified CIVIQ, and venous ultrasound findings, subgroup analysis indicates that this correlation is driven by different components of VCSS compared with the other venous assessment tools. This observation may reflect that VCSS has more global application in determining overall severity of venous disease, while at the same time highlighting the strengths of the other venous assessment tools.