Additionally, a patient could be seen by several practitioners who have different standards for optimal dosing. 7.2. Limitations of Current Data Systems for PCI Administrative claims data are used for a large number of analyses focused on PCI utilization. Although valuable for capturing use and costs, these data are inadequate as a source for quality measures. For example, the Dartmouth Atlas has suggested for several years that substantial regional differ- ences exist in PCI utilization, leading to concerns that PCI A thorough understanding of the reasons for regional variation in these procedures and their value for out- comes, such as improvements in angina and quality of life, however, is still lacking. In addition, hospital-based systems for collecting data on PCI are increasingly incomplete because most elective procedures are now done with an outpatient or observational status rather than an inpatient status. 7.3. Shared Accountability Most patients who have undergone a PCI have come into con- tact with more than one physician before receiving their pro- cedure from an interventional cardiologist. These can include a primary care physician, emergency physician, hospitalist, intensivist, noninvasive cardiologist, and clinical cardiologist. Accountability for quality needs to occur throughout the pro- cess and should be shared by all the providers who care for the patient. Although accountability and subsequent outcomes lie primarily with the interventionist, many steps in the process that occurred before the PCI can contribute to optimizing patient care. This is equally true for care that happens after the PCI. 7.4. Patient Surveys The writing committee suggests that hospitals survey their PCI patients about their level of knowledge, level of educa- tion, and perception of outcomes of their procedures. This is an exciting and important method of ascertaining and ensur- ing patient education with regard to their perceived outcomes of PCI. 