Bradley Elizabeth H, Herrin Jeph, Mattera Jennifer A, Holmboe Eric S, Wang Yongfei, Frederick Paul, Roumanis Sarah A, Radford Martha J, Krumholz Harlan M
Section of Health Policy and Administration, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8025, USA.
Med Care. 2005 Mar;43(3):282-92. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200503000-00011.
Hospitals are under increasing pressure to measure and improve quality of care, and substantial resources are being directed at a variety of quality improvement strategies; however, the evidence base supporting these strategies is limited.
We sought to identify quality improvement efforts that were associated with hospitals' beta-blocker prescription rates after acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
This was a cross-sectional study using data from a telephone survey of quality management directors at participating hospitals linked with patient-level data from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction (NRMI) during the study period, October 1997 to September 1999.
A total of 60,363 patients discharged with a confirmed AMI from 234 US hospitals were included.
Hospital performance based on beta-blocker rates characterized as the top 20%, lower 20%, and middle 40% of hospitals; reported quality improvement efforts, including system interventions, physician leadership, administrative support for quality improvement efforts, and data feedback; hospital teaching status, AMI volume, geographic location, and ownership type.
The mean hospital-specific beta-blocker rate was 60.2%; however, the variation in beta-blocker use across hospitals was marked (range, 19.4-89.3%, standard deviation, 12.7% points), and quality improvement efforts used varied greatly. None of the quality improvement efforts distinguished higher from medium performers; the higher and the medium performers together were distinguished from the lower performers in organizational support for quality improvement efforts (fully adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-3.06) and physician leadership (fully adjusted OR 9.88, 95% CI 2.64-37.02). Among the specific quality improvement interventions, only standing orders were associated with having higher/medium versus lower performance, and their effect had borderline significance (fully adjusted OR 2.26, 95% CI 0.97-5.30, P = 0.07).
Our findings highlight the organizational environment, specifically the absence of administrative support or physician leadership for quality improvement, as an important correlate of poor beta-blocker rates after AMI. Future studies are needed to isolate hospital quality improvement efforts that are associated with superior performance.
医院在衡量和提高医疗质量方面面临着越来越大的压力,大量资源被投入到各种质量改进策略中;然而,支持这些策略的证据基础有限。
我们试图确定与急性心肌梗死(AMI)后医院β受体阻滞剂处方率相关的质量改进措施。
这是一项横断面研究,使用了对参与研究的医院质量管理主任进行电话调查的数据,并与1997年10月至1999年9月研究期间国家心肌梗死登记处(NRMI)的患者层面数据相链接。
纳入了美国234家医院共60363例确诊为AMI后出院的患者。
根据β受体阻滞剂使用率将医院表现分为前20%、后20%和中间40%;报告的质量改进措施,包括系统干预、医生领导力、对质量改进措施的行政支持和数据反馈;医院教学状况、AMI病例数、地理位置和所有制类型。
各医院特定的β受体阻滞剂平均使用率为60.2%;然而,各医院β受体阻滞剂使用情况的差异显著(范围为19.4% - 89.3%,标准差为12.7个百分点),所采用的质量改进措施也差异很大。没有一项质量改进措施能区分出表现较好和中等的医院;在对质量改进措施的组织支持方面(完全调整优势比[OR]为1.89,95%置信区间[CI]为1.17 - 3.06)以及医生领导力方面(完全调整OR为9.88,95%CI为2.64 - 37.02),表现较好和中等的医院共同与表现较差的医院区分开来。在具体的质量改进干预措施中,只有长期医嘱与较高/中等表现与较低表现相关,且其效果具有临界显著性(完全调整OR为2.26,95%CI为0.97 - 5.30,P = 0.07)。
我们的研究结果突出了组织环境,特别是缺乏对质量改进的行政支持或医生领导力,是AMI后β受体阻滞剂使用率低的一个重要相关因素。未来需要进行研究,以确定与卓越表现相关的医院质量改进措施。