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.

  • Source
    • "Finally, there may be limitations in the technical quality of care measures used in the present study. Although there is consensus around many of these indicators, the 14 measures used in this study do not entirely overlap with other proposed sets of quality of care indicators (Tu et al. 2008). Thus, a different result may have been obtained regarding the impact of technical quality if additional measures had been included, such as those related to postdischarge out-of-hospital care. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent studies have suggested that there is a positive impact of patient-centered care (PCC) on both the patient-physician relationship and subsequent patient health-related behaviors. One recent prospective study reported a significant relationship between the degree of PCC experienced by patients during their hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and their postdischarge cardiac symptoms. A limitation of this study, however, was a lack of information regarding the technical quality of the AMI care, which might have explained at least part of the differences in outcomes. The present study was undertaken to test the influence of both PCC and technical care quality on outcomes among AMI patients. We analyzed data from a national sample of 1,858 veterans hospitalized for an initial AMI in a Department of Veterans Affairs medical center during fiscal years 2003 and 2004 for whom data had been compiled on evidence-based treatment and who had also completed a Picker questionnaire assessing perceptions of PCC. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the relationship between PCC and survival 1-year postdischarge, controlling for technical quality of care, patient clinical condition and history, admission process characteristics, and patient sociodemographic characteristics. We hypothesized that better PCC would be associated with a lower probability of death 1-year postdischarge, even after controlling for patient characteristics and the technical quality of care. Better PCC was associated with a significantly but modestly lower hazard of death over the 1-year study period (hazard ratio 0.992, 95 percent confidence interval 0.986-0.999). Providing PCC may result in important clinical benefits, in addition to meeting patient needs and expectations.
    Health Services Research 10/2010; 45(5 Pt 1):1188-204. DOI:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01138.x · 2.49 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source
    Canadian Medical Association Journal 11/2008; 179(9):875-6. DOI:10.1503/cmaj.081438 · 5.81 Impact Factor
Show more


Available from