Impact of Changes in Clinical Practice Guidelines on Assessment of Quality of Care

Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143-0320, USA.
Medical care (Impact Factor: 2.94). 08/2010; 48(8):733-8. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181e35b3a
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Measures for pay-for-performance and public reporting programs may be based on clinical practice guidelines. The impact of guideline changes over time-and whether evolving clinical evidence can render measures based on prior guidelines misleading-is not known.
To assess the impact of using different percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) guidelines when evaluating whether PCI was indicated.
PCIs from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's CathPCI registry performed in 2003-2004 were categorized into indication classes (Class I, IIa, IIb, III), using 2001 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for PCI, the guidelines available at the time of the procedures. The same procedures were recategorized using 2005 guidelines, which reflect the best evidence available to clinicians at the time of PCI. Procedures unable to be categorized were labeled as "Not Certain."
Patients undergoing PCI for stable or unstable angina in 394 hospitals.
Number of procedures changing classification categories using 2001 versus 2005 guidelines.
A total of 345,779 PCIs were evaluated. Applying 2001 guidelines, 47.9% had Class I indications; 33.3% Class IIa; 5.9% Class IIb; 3.7% Class III; and 9.2% Not Certain. Applying 2005 guidelines to the same procedures, 25.1% had Class I indications; 57.5% Class IIa; 5.5% Class IIb; 3.7% Class III; and 8.3% Not Certain; 41.1% of procedures changed the classification overall.
The changes in guidelines resulted in a marked shift in whether PCIs done in 2003-2004 were considered indicated. Guideline-based performance measures should be carefully evaluated before implementation to avoid incorrect assessments of quality of care.

Download full-text


Available from: Rita Redberg, Jun 19, 2015
1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:As an example of the process that could be used to evaluate and optimize the performance of quality measures in routine practice, we evaluated whether the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure assessing the persistence of -blocker treatment after a heart attack correlates with post-myocardial infarction (MI) outcomes and whether or not there are alternative specifications of this construct which are better predictors and/or may be more easily applied.Research Design:The study included a retrospective cohort of 8672 post-MI patients 18 years old and above. We assessed the strength of the association between the different adherence measures and the composite clinical outcome using multivariable Cox models. We compared the predictive capacity of each adherence definition model to one that did not contain adherence by computing the change in C-statistics and the continuous net reclassification improvement indices (NRIs).Results:Adherence was associated with clinical outcome reductions, with hazard ratios ranging from 0.48 (95% CI, 0.27-0.85) to 0.81 (95% CI, 0.67-0.99). None of the adherence measures, including the HEDIS definition, significantly changed the C-statistic relative to a model that did not include adherence. However, the short-term adherence measure (having 72 d covered during the first 90 d postdischarge) showed a large change in NRI (correctly reclassifying 12% of cases and 16% of noncases; NRI: 28%; 95% CI, 22%-38%), although did not significantly differ from the change in NRI with the HEDIS measure.Conclusions:We identified an adherence measure that showed a predictive ability as good as that of the HEDIS definition to measure -blocker use after MI, halving the time of assessment required, and thus, allowing for the implementation of quality improvement interventions in a more timely manner.
    Medical Care 07/2014; 52(7):669-76. DOI:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000148 · 2.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) study, which provided optimal medical therapy (OMT) to all patients and demonstrated no incremental advantage of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on outcomes other than angina-related quality of life in stable coronary artery disease (CAD), suggests that a trial of OMT is warranted before PCI. It is unknown to what degree OMT is applied before PCI in routine practice or whether its use increased after the COURAGE trial. To examine the use of OMT in patients with stable angina undergoing PCI before and after the publication of the COURAGE trial. An observational study of patients with stable CAD undergoing PCI in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry between September 1, 2005, and June 30, 2009. Analysis compared use of OMT, both before PCI and at the time of discharge, before and after the publication of the COURAGE trial. Optimal medical therapy was defined as either being prescribed or having a documented contraindication to all medicines (antiplatelet agent, β-blocker, and statin). Rates of OMT before PCI and at discharge (following PCI) between the 2 study periods. Among all 467,211 patients (173,416 before [37.1%] and 293,795 after [62.9%] the COURAGE trial) meeting study criteria, OMT was used in 206,569 patients (44.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 44.1%-44.4%) before PCI and in 303,864 patients (65.0%; 95% CI, 64.9%-65.2%) at discharge following PCI (P < .001). Before PCI, OMT was applied in 75,381 patients (43.5%; 95% CI, 43.2%-43.7%) before the COURAGE trial and in 131,188 patients (44.7%; 95% CI, 44.5%-44.8%) after the COURAGE trial (P < .001). The use of OMT at discharge following PCI before and after the COURAGE trial was 63.5% (95% CI, 63.3%-63.7%) and 66.0% (95% CI, 65.8%-66.1%), respectively (P < .001). Among patients with stable CAD undergoing PCI, less than half were receiving OMT before PCI and approximately two-thirds were receiving OMT at discharge following PCI, with relatively little change in these practice patterns after publication of the COURAGE trial.
    JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 05/2011; 305(18):1882-9. DOI:10.1001/jama.2011.601 · 30.39 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In 1999, a multidisciplinary panel of experts in colorectal cancer reviewed the relevant medical literature and issued a consensus recommendation for a 12-lymph node (LN) minimum examination after resection for colon cancer. Some authors have shown racial/ethnic differences in receipt of this evidence-based care. To date, however, none has investigated the correlation between disparities in LN examination and disparities in outcomes after colon cancer treatment. This retrospective analysis used California Cancer Registry linked to California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development discharge data (1996-2006). Chi-square analysis, logistic regression, and Cox proportional hazard models predicted disparities in receipt of an adequate examination and the effect of an inadequate exam on mortality and disparities. Patients with stage I and II colon cancers undergoing surgery in California were included; patients with stage III and IV disease were excluded. A total of 37,911 records were analyzed. Adequate staging occurred in fewer than half of cases. An inadequate examination (<12 LNs) was associated with higher mortality rates. Hispanics had the lowest odds of receiving an adequate exam; however, blacks, not Hispanics, had the highest risk of mortality compared with whites. This disparity was not completely explained by inadequate LN examination. Inadequate LN exam occurs often and is associated with increased mortality. There are disparities in receipt of the minimum exam, but this only explains a small part of the observed disparity in mortality. Improving the quality of LN examination alone is unlikely to correct colon cancer disparities.
    Cancer 01/2012; 118(2):469-77. DOI:10.1002/cncr.26316 · 4.90 Impact Factor