Chui Philip W, Parzynski Craig S, Nallamothu Brahmajee K, Masoudi Frederick A, Krumholz Harlan M, Curtis Jeptha P
Department of Internal Medicine, University of California Irvine School of Medicine, Orange, CA.
Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT.
J Am Heart Assoc. 2017 Apr 26;6(5):e004276. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.116.004276.
The Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement recently proposed percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-specific process measures. However, information about hospital performance on these measures and the association of PCI process and outcomes measures are not available.
We linked the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) CathPCI Registry with Medicare claims data to assess hospital performance on established PCI process measures (aspirin, thienopyridines, and statins on discharge; door-to-balloon time; and referral to cardiac rehabilitation), newly proposed PCI process measures (documentation of contrast dose, glomerular filtration rate, and PCI indication; appropriate indication for elective PCI; and use of embolic protection device), and a composite of all process measures. We calculated weighted pair-wise correlations between each set of process metrics and performed weighted correlation analyses to assess the association between composite measure performance with corresponding 30-day risk-standardized mortality and readmission rates. We reported the variance in risk-standardized 30-day outcome rates explained by process measures. We analyzed 1 268 860 PCIs from 1331 hospitals. For many process measures, median hospital performance exceeded 90%. We found strong correlations between medication-specific process measures (<0.01) and weak correlations between hospital performance on the newly proposed and established process measures. The composite process measure explained only 1.3% and 2.0% of the observed variation in mortality and readmission rates, respectively.
Hospital performance on many PCI-specific process measures demonstrated little opportunity for improvement and explained only a small percentage of hospital variation in 30-day outcomes. Efforts to measure and improve hospital quality for PCI patients should focus on both process and outcome measures.
医师绩效改进协会最近提出了经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的特定流程指标。然而,关于医院在这些指标上的表现以及PCI流程与结果指标之间的关联尚无相关信息。
我们将国家心血管数据注册库(NCDR)的心脏PCI注册数据与医疗保险索赔数据相链接,以评估医院在既定的PCI流程指标(出院时使用阿司匹林、噻吩吡啶类药物和他汀类药物;门球时间;以及转介至心脏康复治疗)、新提出的PCI流程指标(造影剂剂量、肾小球滤过率和PCI指征的记录;选择性PCI的适当指征;以及使用栓子保护装置)以及所有流程指标的综合指标方面的表现。我们计算了每组流程指标之间的加权成对相关性,并进行加权相关性分析,以评估综合指标表现与相应的30天风险标准化死亡率和再入院率之间的关联。我们报告了由流程指标解释的风险标准化30天结果率的方差。我们分析了来自1331家医院的1268860例PCI病例。对于许多流程指标,医院的中位数表现超过了90%。我们发现特定药物流程指标之间存在强相关性(<0.01),而新提出的流程指标与既定流程指标的医院表现之间存在弱相关性。综合流程指标分别仅解释了观察到的死亡率和再入院率变化的1.3%和2.0%。
医院在许多PCI特定流程指标上的表现几乎没有改进空间,并且仅解释了30天结果中医院差异的一小部分。衡量和改善PCI患者医院质量的努力应同时关注流程和结果指标。