Literature DB >> 12088475

Guideline-discordant care in acute myocardial infarction: predictors and outcomes.

Ian A Scott1, Catherine M Harper.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine (i) factors which predict whether patients hospitalised with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) receive care discordant with recommendations of clinical practice guidelines; and (ii) whether such discordant care results in worse outcomes compared with receiving guideline-concordant care.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING: Two community general hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 607 consecutive patients admitted with AMI between July 1997 and December 2000. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical predictors of discordant care; crude and risk-adjusted rates of inhospital mortality and reinfarction, and mean length of hospital stay.
RESULTS: At least one treatment recommendation for AMI was applicable for 602 of the 607 patients. Of these patients, 411(68%) received concordant care, and 191 (32%) discordant care. Positive predictors at presentation of discordant care were age > 65 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95% CI, 1.7-3.6), silent infarction (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.6-4.6), anterior infarction (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.7-3.8), a history of heart failure (OR, 6.3; 95% CI, 3.7-10.7), chronic atrial fibrillation (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.5-6.4); and heart rate >/= 100 beats/min (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.4-3.1). Death occurred in 12.0% (23/191) of discordant-care patients versus 4.6% (19/411) of concordant-care patients (adjusted OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.22-4.82). Mortality was inversely related to the level of guideline concordance (P = 0.03). Reinfarction rates also tended to be higher in the discordant-care group (4.2% v 1.7%; adjusted OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 0.90-7.1).
CONCLUSIONS: Certain clinical features at presentation predict a higher likelihood of guideline-discordant care in patients presenting with AMI. Such care appears to increase the risk of inhospital death.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12088475     DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2002.tb04627.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med J Aust        ISSN: 0025-729X            Impact factor:   7.738


  6 in total

1.  From practice guidelines to clinical decision support: closing the loop.

Authors:  John Fox; Vivek Patkar; Ioannis Chronakis; Richard Begent
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 5.344

2.  Are diagnosis specific outcome indicators based on administrative data useful in assessing quality of hospital care?

Authors:  I Scott; D Youlden; M Coory
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2004-02

3.  Using computerised decision support to improve compliance of cancer multidisciplinary meetings with evidence-based guidance.

Authors:  Vivek Patkar; Dionisio Acosta; Tim Davidson; Alison Jones; John Fox; Mohammed Keshtgar
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2012-06-25       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Thromboprophylaxis patterns and determinants in critically ill patients: a multicenter audit.

Authors:  François Lauzier; John Muscedere; Eric Deland; Demetrios Jim Kutsogiannis; Michael Jacka; Diane Heels-Ansdell; Mark Crowther; Rodrigo Cartin-Ceba; Michael J Cox; Nicole Zytaruk; Denise Foster; Tasnim Sinuff; France Clarke; Patrica Thompson; Steven Hanna; Deborah Cook
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2014-04-25       Impact factor: 9.097

5.  Thinking styles and doctors' knowledge and behaviours relating to acute coronary syndromes guidelines.

Authors:  Ruth M Sladek; Malcolm J Bond; Luan T Huynh; Derek P B Chew; Paddy A Phillips
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2008-04-25       Impact factor: 7.327

6.  A cross-sectional multicentre study of cardiac risk score use in the management of unstable angina and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Josien Engel; Ineke van der Wulp; Martine de Bruijne; Cordula Wagner
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-11-24       Impact factor: 2.692

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.