Indicators of quality of care for patients with acute myocardial infarction.

The Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ont.
Canadian Medical Association Journal (Impact Factor: 5.81). 11/2008; 179(9):909-15. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.080749
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT There is a wide practice gap between optimal and actual care for patients with acute myocardial infarction in hospitals around the world. We undertook this initiative to develop an updated set of evidence-based indicators to measure and improve the quality of care for this patient population.
A 12-member expert panel was convened in 2007 to develop an updated set of quality indicators for acute myocardial infarction. The panel identified a list of potential indicators after reviewing the scientific literature, clinical practice guidelines and other published quality indicators. To develop the new list of indicators, the panel rated each potential indicator on 4 dimensions (reliability, validity, feasibility and usefulness in improving patient outcomes) and discussed the top-ranked quality indicators at a consensus meeting.
Consensus was reached on 38 quality indicators: 17 that would be measurable using chart-abstracted data and 21 that would be measurable using administrative data. Of the 17 chart-review indicators, 13 address pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic care delivered to patients in hospital. In-hospital mortality was recommended as a key outcome indicator. Three system indicators were recommended to measure the collaborative responsiveness of the health care system from the call for help to intervention. It was recommended that hospitals strive for a minimum target benchmark of 90% or greater on process-of-care indicators.
Implementation of strategies by clinicians and hospitals to meet target benchmarks on these quality indicators could save the lives of many individuals with acute myocardial infarction.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: /st>To evaluate whether public reporting of performance data was associated with a change over time in quality indicators for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in Italian hospitals. /st>Pre-post evaluation of AMI indicators in the Lazio region, before and after disclosure of the Regional Outcome Evaluation Program, and a comparative evaluation versus other Italian regions not participating in the program. /st>Nationwide Hospital Information System and vital status records. /st>24 800 patients treated for AMI in Lazio and 39 350 in the other regions. /st>Public reporting of the Regional Outcome Evaluation Program in the Lazio region. /st>Risk-adjusted indicators for AMI. /st>The proportion of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients treated with percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) within 48 h in Lazio changed from 31.3 to 48.7%, before and after public reporting, respectively (relative increase 56%; P < 0.001). In the other regions, the proportion increased from 51.5 to 58.4% (relative increase 13%; P < 0.001). Overall 30-day mortality and 30-day mortality for patients treated with PCI did not improve during the study period. The 30-day mortality for STEMI patients not treated with PCI in Lazio was significantly higher in 2009 (29.0%) versus 2006/07 (24.0%) (P = .002). /st>Public reporting may have contributed to increasing the proportion of STEMI patients treated with timely PCI. The mortality outcomes should be interpreted with caution. Changes in AMI diagnostic and coding systems should also be considered. Risk-adjusted quality indicators represent a fundamental instrument for monitoring and potentially enhancing quality of care.
    International Journal for Quality in Health Care 04/2014; · 1.79 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hospital discharge records are an essential source of information when comparing health outcomes among hospitals; however, they contain limited information on acute clinical conditions. Doubts remain as to whether the addition of clinical and drug consumption information would improve the prediction of health outcomes and reduce confounding in inter-hospital comparisons. The objective of the study is to compare the performance of two multivariate risk adjustment models, with and without clinical data and drug prescription information, in terms of their capability to a) predict short-term outcome rates and b) compare hospitals' risk-adjusted outcome rates using two risk-adjustment procedures.
    BMC Health Services Research 01/2014; 14(1):495. · 1.66 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are at high risk for reinfarction and death. Therapies that have been shown to reduce these risks (secondary prevention) continue to be underutilized. Nurse practitioners are well positioned to provide secondary prevention during and following hospitalization Objectives The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of NP care on the rate of provider implementation and patient achievement of evidence-based secondary prevention target goals. Design A prospective cohort design was used, which compared achievement of target goals between patients who received secondary prevention care from an NP to those who received usual care. Participants The sample consisted of 65 patients with AMI, admitted to a large community hospital. Patients meeting eligibility criteria were recruited consecutively Methods The intervention was delivered by the NP before discharge from hospital and one week, two weeks, six weeks and 3 months after discharge. Data on patients’ achievement of goals were obtained before discharge from hospital and 3 months after discharge from both groups. Results This study's results provide preliminary evidence that an NP delivered secondary prevention intervention can significantly improve achievement of the following target goals when compared to usual care: smoking cessation (OR 5), blood pressure (OR 15), attendance at cardiac rehabilitation (OR 7), physical activity five days a week (OR 17), physical activity ≥ five days a week (OR 34), achieving a glycated hemoglobin < 7% in those with diabetes (OR 10), triglyceride levels (p = 02), statin use at follow-up (p = .05), and number of weeks to cardiac rehabilitation (p .05). Conclusion NP-led interventions such as this warrant duplication to evaluate reproducibility of the intervention and to determine if short-term improvements in secondary prevention goals translate into morbidity and mortality benefits.
    The Canadian journal of cardiology 12/2014; · 3.94 Impact Factor


Available from